A comparison of Sorkin's "West Wing" and Palladino's "Gilmore Girls"

      Well all this post reveals to me is that I watch way too much television. But the interesting thing I have discovered in watching most of the first four seasons of  Aaron Sorkin's "The West Wing" and Amy Sherman Palladino's "Gilmore Girls" is that while these shows may have different themes among them, their are many commonalities when it comes to the pace of these shows. For one both of these producers have a focus on the fast walking and talking while at the same time. Furthermore, the main protagonists in the show always seem to be in a rush or having a deadline to get something done, be it packing for Yale, passing a Bill, or getting the funds to a major brand name school.
   But even with these similarities both of these shows have very different themes. For instance with "West Wing" it is a democrats fantasy and escapism from reality since the show started in 2000 and ended in 2006 and about this time George Bush junior had been elected as President. Even though I would cut it off at 2003 because Soorkin stopped producing for the television show from season 5 to 7.
        The show "The West Wing" became to represent for some democrats their version of White House life that was ran by liberal democrats who just wanted to help people, and not try to sacrifice their moral integrity in the process.  This perspective can be further shown when one of the main character Sam comments that in terms of education that "The schools should be palaces and that teachers should be treated like kings".  This even more element in military skirmishes that take place in the situation room because our fictional President Bartlett played by the charismatic Martin Sheen does not want to get involved in wars with his fellow countries and at the very least wants to try to be diplomatic and peaceful before the United States is reduced to having to fight against another country.   These would be seen as tenets of a president with seemingly liberal democratic leanings that Soorkin is notorious for portraying in all of his television shows.  This show takes a political commentary hope for viewers while giving hope to fifty percent of population for a democratic president in the future at the time.
    But with this "Gilmore Girls" their are hints of political commentary, but it seems to be more of a social/cultural commentary in my opinion. I have seen all the episodes of this show two to three times over and I would exclude season seven since Palladino had no hand in producing it.  This can be seen in the episode "Application Anxiety" in season three where Rory gets her Harvard application and she and her mom are watching a Brady Brunch singing and dance special when that morning Rory has been reading Gogol's "Dead Souls".  There is a strong contrast between the high and low culture in this show, but the great thing about these figures is that they are smart and can adapt to both of these seemingly different worlds.  This can further seen by the contrast between Rory/her mom when compared to the grandparents.
      This becomes evident in season one episode six called "Rory's Birthday parties".  We see this contrast when Lorelai's parents throw Rory a high class catered party for their friends and her classmates, and the next night she has this casual affair with her stars hallow family and friends.  But even with the differences between high and low culture through out the show I think that they can be related to one another, the best example of this I can give is through fashion when the couture designs on the runway trickle down to the budget wears that one will find at the mall, Target and Ross.
      Now even though these shows are different in terms of themes, and similar in their approach, this has me wondering if Palladino and Sorkin have ever met.  I say this because I have seen Palladino's show "Gilmore Girls" many times over and the first season of her new show "Bunheads", and I have watched Sorkin's "Sports Night", "The West Wing", "Studio 60 on the sunset strip", and some of "The Newsroom", and they seem so similar to one another.
      Also I am wondering if these two should collaborate to make a show that is so good, that any major or cable network would have no reason to reject such a proposal.  But before this occurs I would like to know if anyone can find out if they know whether Sorkin and Palladino have met in the past, I have done my research online and have not found anything.  So if anyone has any information about this be it an article or expose please, can you please post it as a comment for this blog.  So readers I have to ask do you think Soorkin and Palladino should collaborate and make a kick ass show? Why or Why not?

A comparison of "Murder She Wrote" and "Castle"

  Well, I have been watching "Murder She Wrote" off and on for the past couple months, and have become obsessed with the fictional character JB Fletcher. She is charismatic, gets along with everybody, and always seems to know how to handle situations in a fair and delicate matter.  I think her show from the 1980's to 1990's  might have been the beginning of mystery writers being the detectives in a television and to my knowledge I had not seen this before in any prior detective shows.  Also she has a Sherlock approach through using her powers of deduction to solve her crimes.  Murder she wrote's first episode is even called The Murder of Sherlock Holmes.
      The issue with her show is that there are very few pursued romances throughout the show. (spoiler) We learn from the first episode that she has lost her husband Frank, who is referenced to throughout the seasons.  She is pursued many times through visitors in other cities, and it seems to be hinted at the Dr. Hazelick seems to be into her.  But I think this is the point I think she is trying to show that an older woman can be independent and not needing to lean on a man, unless she wants to or he adds on to her own experiences.  This can even be shown through some of the women who seem to be having a hard time of things and tend get blamed for murders they did not commit over the seasons, while being tortured and ridiculed by some of the older men . But with Castle they go where the evidence leads, and while they tend to jump the gun about who the killer is also, not a majority of the people falsely accused for murder are female.
    Another difference, is that in "Castle", it's all its about is the sexual tension, and the romance, and castle through his own networking with the mayor. This show chronicles their annoyance, friendship, and then love for one another. But, with Castle he tends to act like a child in an adult mans body, and has very little understanding of women as shown through the many conversations with his daughter and mother. Also he like JB Fletcher but maybe for different reasons is too afraid to ever delve into a serious romantic relationship. Actually, that might be Castle's issue he likes falling in love, and has a harder time actually maintaining the relationship. But , this show seems to focus more on romantic relationships when compared to murder she wrote.
      But its not like this show does not care about the fictional murders that occur has shown between the team work between Esposito, Ryan, Laney, Beckett, and Castle to get the truth of the matter in a case. Castle is able to provide a different, albeit sometimes crazy, and conspiracy theory based approach to solving some murders. However, this always fun and keeps the viewers on their toes, because they never know what to expect from Castle.
     But with both of these shows their may not be much difference in victims in both shows though, as they both show how much gender, race, and class will effect who be murdered and what their motive will be. The weird thing is that for some of these murders they were over things that could not be controlled, or because the murder is question made assumptions that were not really true.  (spoiler) I can refer to season  1 episode 3 of Castle where a model gets killed by her husband because he thinks she is cheating on him with a photographer.
    These two shows, reveal how the mystery detective is viewed from an older wise women to a ruggedly handsome Rick Castle, seems to be a forward transition, but as viewers what would we rather focus on the murders or the relationships, or both.   Or I should be asking do we need both, or would one suffice?

My average experience at hometown buffet

   I recently went to "Hometown Buffet" with my family to celebrate mothers day.  The food was average, not good, not bad never anything to rave about. When it comes to hometown buffet I know what to expect, its like an average burger place you know what you are getting.  I know that they might be known for their ribs and sliced meats.  I am still wishing they served chicken gravy, because it always tasted better than their beef gravy.
   Even with these downsides "Hometown Buffet" does have some perks. For instance they now have instant coffee , slushy, and horchata machines.  Also their is a whole rack filled with condiments to add to your food. Even with my expectations and these now added perks, the one thing that disappointed me this time when I went to hometown buffet was the service. The last time we were their are plates were cleared every couple plates. This time by the end of the meal, none of our plates were cleared at all.
    This too me is a sign that either that the local is understaffed or that our table was not a priority at the time. The reason this was such a faux pas to me is because no one wants to see their mostly eaten food when they are trying to eat a meal. I know, I don't anyway.  So readers I have to ask if you have had any better or worse eating experiences at "Hometown Buffet"?

The life I never had passing before my eyes...

  Well, I went in for a routine gynecology appointment with the hope of getting a birth control prescription for the year.  While, I was able to accomplish this I found out that their is a possibility that I might have endometriosis which could cause infertility in the future. I then discovered on my dad's sides of the family that it was a common occurrence with some of my aunts. I also found out that some of them had to have hysterectomies when they were in their 40's. The thing with this condition is I have to find out I can afford the laproscopy procedure and then determine whether or not to have it, and if it will have to make me figure out how I feel towards having kids.
     The weird thing was when I found this out I was more worried about how my bf might take it compared me. I was more worried/possibly a bit paranoid that me possibly being infertile might be a deal breaker so to speak. I really didn't care too much about how I felt about the situation. My main concerns are  having a career, and maybe getting married in the future, the possibility of having kids is in the back burner. I am just not sure to do when the future I am never sure if I wanted it or not in the first place started flashing before my eyes.
    This whole situation makes me more emotional and confused when it comes to the idea of having children. And I already feel like I can be too emotional as it is in some situations, and the fact that flo is coming to town in a couple days makes me more sensitive and moody about things then I would like to be. This situation also has me wondering if their have been other women out there who have these same mixed feelings about children and their future.  Also how did they deal with it?  As it is I can deal with either being on the fence or having a stance on an issue, as of right now I don't know how I should be feeling.

Commenting on fame

       Since the seventeenth century people have been writing about the scandals of others.  This can be  seen through Samuel Johnson's diary where he comments on the life and those around him. The need to talk about others is further pushed when newspapers began to comment on the personal lives of aristocrats.  This commenting becomes so prevalent in newspapers and magazines that even play writes such as F. Burney and R. Sheridan began to talk and comment on the lives of rich and famous in their satirical 1770's plays.
   Now lets fast forward 200+ years where becoming famous has become as easy as writing a blog, self publishing a novel, starting a fashion line, etc.  The ways to Warhol's fifteen minutes of fame are numerous, but how long one will stay in the spotlight is debatable.  However, those that stick around or forever commented on by bloggers and paparazzi. If you make a bad fashion choice, or end up in a bad movie role in a movie people will know about it and comment on it. 
   But these days bloggers, podcasts and the common man via twitter can now voice their opinions about movies and television shows. One positive of this is that people's opinion dictates how a story might turn out in the end in a television show.  But is this a good thing, because times even when a tiny show has become popular it can still be cancelled. The examples are numerous such as "Firefly, Dollhouse, Pushing Daisies", etc.  However, it has been such viewers that has been able to with such things such a "Firefly" and "Veronica Mars" movies.
    I think it might be a double edged sword where viewers dictate what is on television but at the same time they are not always able to do anything if a show or someone gets the axe in a television show.  (spoiler alert) A great example of this would be "Downton Abbey" where they killed off two of the main characters leaving viewers both mad and sad at the end of the third season.  The viewers had no control of this since we did not that their acting contracts had expired after three years.  So this has me wondering if people need this immediate feedback/commentary on a television show and their actors? Also is this feedback a good thing? And if it is why?
    I ask this because shows like "Pretty Little Liars" and "Gossip Girl" reveal how private information being revealed in a public nature can destroy lives. In the case of "Pretty Little Liars" they are blackmailed into behaving a certain way. While in "Gossip Girl" it is very voyeuristic with others watching and analyzing your every move in the spotlight. These shows seem to be commentary themselves on how even some private information of fictional major figure heads seem be off limits in the information age. But this has me asking why these figures, what is so important about them? Why them and not anyone else? So readers I ask if you have any responses or thoughts to my many questions.

This whole debate is garbage...

   I am currently residing in a city where there is a huge debate about who should be providing the garbage services for the city. Our mayor wants to switch over to a private corporation for garbage disposal services and will provide fees to help keep our broke city afloat.  The issue is that the city where I live has a unemployment rate lower than the states and I am all for public workers keeping their jobs rather than standing in line for  food stamps or unemployment.  The mayor last December was able to pass a bill to let the private corporations take over the garbage disposals for the city. The people of my city were not happy about this and neither was I.
   So their was a local petition started so that the people could have a say as to who does their garbage disposal services.  This then has made a bill that will be voted on June 4th, and the people will decide what they want. I think the reason the mayors public is annoyed by her trying to pull a fast one is that we had no say in who would be doing our garbage disposal services. Furthermore, she is getting rid of jobs in a city with an already high unemployment rate which to me seems dumb on her part.  Also with the privatization of their garbage disposal service people don't know if their rates will be raised, how good the service will be, or any of a variety of factors.  Also the public service that is currently in place people seem to like and it has served us well for over a decade.
   Finally, I think people are more comfortable with the evil they know, compared to the evil they don't.  While, I am for this service not being privatized, I can understand the city needing the funds, but all this has me thinking is that there has to be another way. If people can raise over millions of dollars to start a Veronica Mars movie, people would certainly raise money to invest in our fair city. My ultimatum to our lovely mayor is to please find another way to make up for the lost money in the budget that does not involve pissing off your constituency.  So readers I have to ask what to do you think privatize the business, or keep it with the same public service that has gotten good ratings and that the people are rooting for?  
   

The discoveries made through grief...

    I have been talking with various people lately and it has had me think about how much grief can change a person and those around you. For instance when a relative dies you begin to discover your true friends by those that are those for you, and by those who would rather you leave you in the dust be it due to denial or other reasons.  I have experienced grief many times through losing a boss, grandpa, and grandma. While, these experiences have not thrilled me I think they have made me stronger and made me want to make the most out of my life.
    However, as television can show us grief can have both negative and positive effects on a person. For instance in the show "Everwood", the grief of losing the mother figure gives the family a chance to come together and for the father and son to bond. However, when it comes to the show "Revenge" Emily's this sadness over the loss of her father is used a tool for anger and to enact revenge on her father for those that destroyed his life. But in the case of "Murder She Wrote" she shows the grief of her losing her husband making her a busy woman because she does not want to think about the soul mate she lost. Also, I think this holds her back because throughout the show from what I have seen she has never pursued a relationship with any of the older men on the show. This I think also has another purpose, which I think I can save for another blog post.  Also this has me wondering if someone dies if someones reaction to it is how they really are, or if its the sadness, anger, depression, and denial talking?
      I think it could be a bit of both. I say this because when my Grandma died I wanted to hide under my bed and cry for weeks on end. I knew this was not an option I had a thesis to edit and finish and I had to keep living life as a graduate student. I was a wreck for the first couple months after I couldn't even look at her picture from the program at her wake. I think I was more sad that I couldn't be at her side to tell her how much I loved her, I was never given the opportunity since she was cremated and had not left a will about what she wanted to happen to her body when she died. I still can't get myself to look at her picture, but even with the woulda, coulda, shouldas I think about the good memories we did have together. 
      Ok, now to stop myself from crying, readers I have to ask how have you dealt or deal with sadness such a family member or friend dying? Also what do you when those that you are close to have experienced a death of someone close to them?