From his takedown of a review of Californication:
The sex romps are setups for Hank’s kissoff lines and parting shots, some of which are so nasty they’re like being spat upon. “Consider yourself defiled,” he says to one babe as he brings their session to a premature close, and he tells the wife of a producer he’s just laid (who had the nerve to insult him that the movie adaptation of Hank’s novel was better than the novel itself), “Not only are you a cadaverous lay, you have shitty taste in movies.” “Have you ever heard someone refer to a lover as a ‘cadaverous lay’? I doubt it,” beams Doug Elfman* in the Chicago Sun Times. “That’s a mark of clever, original writing.”
No, it’s not, it’s the hoofprint of misogyny, the same half-quip, half-sneer of hip misogyny knocking around in so many Hollywood comedies about manchildren with low metabolisms. I feel sorry for the actresses cast in Californication, who not only perform nude scenes–something many actresses are wary about, knowing those clips will be pasted forever on the internet–but then have their characters dispatched with a crude insult that adds a special spicy dash of indignity for the drive home. Yes, they knew what they were getting into, but even so–Shampoo didn’t rubbish its actresses that way. That Hank gets his comeuppance now and then doesn’t dispel the smog of contempt that permeates the pores of nearly everybody on this show for the crime of not living up to the ideals Hank supposedly possessed before the sin of selling out turned him into a husk of a writer attached to a roving penis.
Swoon!
Thank you! Contempt for women for the crime of having sex is not adult at all — it’s a sniggering adolescent’s conception of what adults do when they’re having sex, a fantasy of revenge against all those girls who dared have their own preferences when the writers were back in high school trying to score.
What would be really revolutionary, really adult — and frankly, in our present social climate, really transgressive — would be a show about amoral people who have sex or don’t, as the spirit moves them, but don’t get tangled up in bitterness, reproachfulness or recriminations. Or guilt.
The closest TV ever came to that recently was Samantha on SATC, and it was clear that she was a cartoon, who eventually got her comeuppance for her years of unapologetic sportfucking by contracting cancer and having to endure the guilt-tripping of her sex-columnist friend.
What would be really revolutionary, really adult — and frankly, in our present social climate, really transgressive — would be a show about amoral people who have sex or don’t, as the spirit moves them, but don’t get tangled up in bitterness, reproachfulness or recriminations. Or guilt.
That would be “Six Feet Under.” Yes, there was often bitterness, reproachfulness and recriminations, but it had more to do with the underlying relationships than a Sex Is Bad message.
Though I suppose you could make an argument that slutty Brenda gets punished at the end by:
(1) having her husband reject her for a woman he just met
(2) having said husband promptly die after telling her he’s going to leave her
(3) did I mention she’s pregnant?
(4) now she has to raise his child, who no one is quite sure is actually his child at all, plus her own child, on her own
At least Claire and Ruth did pretty well, though. Claire didn’t even get punished for her abortion.
Thanks for pointing out Wolcott’s column. I enjoy his writing, but don’t check in on his column often enough.
And his asterisked comment about Elfman and the “vagina jokes” that “stick to your ribs”…oof. I don’t know anything about Elfman, but just from those comments, I think he’s suffering from wannabe Hipper Than Thou syndrome. That’s never pretty.
Imagine Wolcott actually wondering how the actresses must feel. Apparently he got over any desperate need to be cool a long time ago. Elfman could learn something.
And, OMG, is Duchovny ever going to do some decent post X-Files work? I know that an iconic hit like that will permanently skew a career, but Gillian Anderson has managed to do several solid pieces of work. She starred in “The House of Mirth”, but she’s also done some impressive secondary roles, like the aid worker in “The Last King of Scotland”. I guess that’s the key thing for an actor’s post TV-blockbuster career: don’t rule out ensemble work, or juicy smaller non-lead parts.
Okay, back to the topic: yup, Wolcott’s good readin’.
PS: I’ve just started watching Showtime’s “Weeds” (on DVD, part-way through the first season), and it seems like it may have viable sportfucking possibilities.
PS: I know “Weeds” is old news to everyone but me, and therefore doesn’t come under the Spoiler Warning convention….but please don’t spoil me about anything major, mk? I mean, without warning me. Like the term Spoiler Warning says. I am shutting up now.
Weeds is the only show I know where a woman assfucks a man. And they barely, barely played it for laughs. (NOT a plot development. Just an amusing second-season aside).
Weeds is the only show I know where a woman assfucks a man.
Well, there was The Sopranos, with Janice and Ralphie, but that was a character/plot thing and a way for Tony to play Ralphie once he bribed Janice to tell him about Ralphie’s proclivities.
OTOH, it seemed like Tony, but not the show itself, judged Janice for that. Tony’s closed-mindedness was also part of the equation.
I had forgotten about Ralphie, since I was not a Sopranos watcher and saw that only incidentally.
Gillian Anderson also does a rather cute but far too short appearance as Gillian Anderson in “Tristam Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story”
So sad about David Duchovny but I was not planning on trying to watch this anyway it struck me as an unholy marriage of Red Shoe Diaries, Nip/Tuck and Entourage.
Usually I try to get through three episodes or so before judging a show. Most good shows take a few episodes to get their characters and situations established, and very few of the really decent programs showed their genius in the first episode.
With that tip of the hat to fairness, I don’t know if I can wade through three episodes of Californication. Hank’s self-loathing is just too tedious to make good television. Furthermore, not only is he a loser, but he’s a generic loser, which is the kiss of death right there. I’ve seen his type played before, and played better, in movies and novels like Wonder Boys.
I hate to seem like I’m playing the wishy-washy fencesitter, but the one thing that I’m undecided about is whether the show itself is misogynist. Hank’s unquestionably a misogynist, immature twerp, but that’s not necessarily equivalent to the show having those qualities. So far, it’s far too difficult for me to imagine that the writers are trying to get me to identify and sympathize with this dolt to imagine that we’re unambiguously supposed to embrace his attitudes. The predominant emotion that Hank and I could share was his self-loathing. Will the writers continue to play his despicable character traits for cheap laughs, or will they develop storylines that give us deeper insight into Hank’s character, even if he himself is too doltish to appreciate those insights? I’m willing to give them the three episodes or so before I pass final judgement on that, although I may leave it up to others to watch them for me.
I confess, I’m too curious about Hank’s “relationship” with Madeline Zima’s character to stop watching.
Until it squicks me too hard, and then I’ll stop. (It’s been precariously close since the first episode, to be honest.)