All about a boy

Ok, we're here. Final 2 hours. With too many deja vu moments this year, can 24 Season 6 redeem itself?

Looking back on previous seasons, when it *really* worked (especially Season 1), the "oh my God's" were typically when characters were either killed off or put in absolute dire circumstances ... what made those moments all the more compelling, was because the viewer was given reason to be invested in a particular character or storyline ... where you would inevitably think to yourself what you would do in a similar situation.

Think of Jack's wife. Think of his daughter partying with a few friends in the furniture store and then seeing her best friend being left in the middle of the road and realizing then she was being held against her will ....Even think back just a couple of years ago when they knocked Edgar off ... or when Miguel got infected with the virus ... Sometimes it does come down to casting, and the presence that someone has (Miguel) ... sometimes you find out more about a character's back story that helps fill in some gaps of that character (Edgar) ... either way, the writing was much stronger in years' past ...

I absolutely hate to say it, but if the writers are as fearless as they have been in years past, then maybe the one who has to go this year is Chloe (as i write this it's about T-minus 3 minutes to the beginning of the final 2 hours...)

Between 4 am and 5 am. The split screens, at the very beginning, of Doyle and Josh really had me thinking that Doyle must have hooked up with Marilyn .... Ya, I know the Chinatown-like spoilers out there saying that Jack's father is Josh's father...

Ok, just as I was watching the beach drop-off scene and thinking that the bad guys would just as easily shoot Doyle on the beach and then take the boy, the 'component' blows up in his face. But, why wouldn't Jack just shooot the boat?

4:59 cliffhanger? Chloe dying? No. Pregnant? Probably... As hour 2 begins, opening credits tells us that we may be seeing William Devane and Kim Raver again?

This has proved to be problematic with 24 ... Way back in Season 1, producers et. al. took great pains to keep from the public who was going to play that season's bad guy. In fact, the first time we actually saw him, it was literally in the final seconds of a particular episode; problem was, the opening credits 54 minutes earlier told us that Dennis Hopper was in the episode.

Which leads to another reason why Season 1 was as good as it was -- not just any bad guy, but a bad guy who made it personal, who had a grudge, and portrayed by someone who you knew had 'psychotic credibility.'

With just over half an hour left, I think it's time Josh got some balls. Then, sho 'nuff, he takes his chance. First with a wrench, then ......with a gun. Not once, but twice. (Somehow, I think Jack's Dad may make a return in the future ... )

In a lot of ways the final 2 hours *were* about a boy, not just Josh, but Jack. In the final minutes of Jack confronting Heller (Devane), Keifer tried to save the season with an exchange that hinted at his frustration ... the loss of everything over the previous 'seasons' .. the loss of his wife ... the loss of a father to which he felt nothing ... the loss of Audrey ... standing at the proverbial ledge...

Episode of the woman

Well, in tonight's episode of 24, we had a smorgasboard of 'women on a mission.' Ok, ya, early on we had Marilyn doing her best Shelly Duvall impression (as in the continually hysterical screaming wife of Jack Nicholson in The Shining), Lisa Miller doing her best Hilary Clinton (get it? hitting her lover with a lamp ... was that too obscure?), and Nadia kicking some serious terrorist a**...

Best line of tonight's episode?

Terrorist to their CTU hostages: "We're moving you to a secure room." Secure room? Hello?!? There's absolutely NOTHING secure about CTU Los Angeles.

Just minutes in, we saw Jack and Nadia hatching a plan to take out the terrorists. But hey, where in the heck was Chloe (aka, Miss Rambolina)??? If given the opportunity, I'm sure she could have taken them out single-handly over an hour ago. (Or Lisa Miller for that matter ...nice use of a lamp by the way ..)

Some interesting split screens, off and on, tonight...

And, after almost 24 hours with some major sleep deprivation, Jack's run and aim in the underground garage was particularly good .... I think he hit almost everyone he went after, not to mention with some strength left over to lift Josh up. What a man!

And what did the final 30 seconds tell us? Little Ricky (Doyle) is a baaad, baaad boy ...

The struggle between art and commerce

Ok. This takes precedence over any 24-related posting.

I heard on the way home tonight that NBC has cancelled Aaron Sorkin's Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. It is a black day. NBC, in it's infinite wisdom, will, in part, supplement this loss with the continuing durge of reality shows like The Apprentice (eeeewwwwww!), Deal or No Deal, Survivor and add some new shows, including a remake of The Bionic Woman. (sigh). Yes, The Bionic Woman.

It is, indeed, a black day. So, here's my armband.



Yes, we are all being lobotimized. So, on this particular day, and for those who never saw Studio 60, below is a clip of the very first scene of the very first episode. Dialogue, written by Aaron Sorkin, that unfortunately seemed to forshadow what was to come. The irony .... the irony ...



"Scr*w the cheerleader, save Matt and Danny. Save Studio 60, Save the World."

Unbelievable!

Courtesy of Break.com, here's "Autistic man Draws Near-Perfect Panorama of Rome." Unbelievable.

Preparing for the end...

Ok, after seeing last night's episode of 24, with its moments of predictability and some that were a bit of a surprise (Milo: bu-bye), I found someone who really captured all that happened.

So, as we prepare for the final 2 hours, check this out -- he said it all.

Ricky Martin: A guy's guy? A girl's guy? Who cares...

Ok. I admit it … there were moments I felt like this chick … >>

…and there were moments I didn’t understand what he was singing. But did it matter? No. Here’s a guy, who for over 20 years has crafted a stage personae, a presence, a professionalism that goes way beyond.

A guy who can take, with the smallest of gestures, a seemingly insignificant part of his body, and represent rhythm and pulse and project it to an audience of thousands. With a body that just plain rocks, he uses the smallest of tendons and ripples it to a beat no one would even attempt to physically represent. This, in large part, was the astonishment I felt many times last Monday night.

But, that’s just the beginning.

The voice, although definitely not fully embraced or reproduced well enough by a lacking sound system in the first part of the show, hung on throughout. This is his technical backbone. But for any singer, it has to be that way. Imagine, though … having that voice to ‘fall back on.’

The fact that I didn’t understand a lot of what he was singing (about), clearly it was all in the delivery and how he would make you feel. I remember years and years ago, when I was going through the Conservatory system, studying piano, playing recitals, festivals. Frequently, I would take on contemporary works … music that I know, quite often, people had never heard before. Ok, sure, there was a slight personal thrill in that because I knew I didn’t have to be compared to hundreds of years’ worth of other performances. And by contemporary, I mean that it would be, for lack of a better explanation, ‘classical’ music written in the last 40 or 50 years. Music that to many – some even the trained ear – seemed dissonant with no ‘harmony’, no tonal center, or no conventional structure. At the risk of sounding a little heady here, music that required a different ‘listening’ experience.

Looking back on those experiences now, I know that subconsciously I felt I needed to convey to the listeners a sense of the visual in the hopes of making some kind of emotional connection. Ok, they wouldn’t know what I was playing, but maybe, just maybe, they would interpret the sounds as some kind of visual experience … have them understand the piece by “seeing” it … to not get hung up on “…this doesn’t sound like Bach? … What is she playing?…” To have them listen with their imaginations. If a certain part of the piece sounded like running water, or running through the jungle, or a window view from a plane, or specific emotion or feeling, so be it. That would be fine by me. The challenge would always be for someone to hopefully think at the end, “…gee, I have no idea what that was about, but it was about something…”

Well, the ACC on Monday night was something. In some respects, some of it a little staged perhaps … but always genuine and from the heart. So, for those of you who missed it, here are some mementos ….