Shameless 'Jezebel' is Biblically Bad - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

Skywalker · 03-14-2008, 10:46 PM

Shameless 'Jezebel' is biblically bad
By Robert Bianco, USA TODAY

Keep moving, Gilmore Girls fans. Nothing to see here.

Anyone hoping that even some of the charm, warmth and wit of Amy Sherman-Palladino's Girls has carried over to her Fox sitcom will be disappointed and possibly horrified. The pop-culture riffs and bullet-fast chattiness are still here, but they're now attached to two impossible-to-like characters trapped in an impossible-to-believe situation.

If nothing else, The Return of Jezebel James will give you new respect for Lauren Graham, who made those Girls monologues seem natural and enchanting. Turned over to Parker Posey, Sherman-Palladino's just-keep-talking style becomes as annoying in fiction as it would in real life.

Posey stars as Sarah, an editor of children's books who decides she wants a child of her own. Unable to conceive, she asks her estranged "free spirit" sister, Coco (Lauren Ambrose), to carry the baby. They fight, as well they might, considering it's a lot to ask of a woman you shuttled off to rehab and had evicted. Yet Coco says yes — and why not, since the character seems to mutate from line to line, depending on whatever joke Sherman-Palladino wants to make next.

Posey is a fine actress, but she has found neither her character nor a workable sitcom style. Ambrose seems even more at sea, but then Coco makes so little sense that you can hardly blame her.

Even if the performances were better and the scripts were funnier, Jezebel would still be saddled with one of the most preposterous, off-putting setups in sitcom history. And think of the months of promised non-fun ahead, as Coco gets pregnant, has the child — and then what? Stays? Leaves? Demands custody?

Chances are Sherman-Palladino will never have to figure that one out.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/televis...l_N.htm?csp=34

Dean Winchester · 03-14-2008, 11:00 PM

I was really disappointed, I love Parker and Lauren but the show sucked

Skywalker · 03-14-2008, 11:22 PM

Alan Sepinwall on TV
Friday, March 14, 2008
BY ALAN SEPINWALL
Star-Ledger Staff

The Return of Jezebel James

(Tonight at 8 on Channel 5) A successful book editor (Parker Posey) who wants a baby but can't conceive asks her estranged younger sister (Lauren Ambrose) to be a surrogate in a new comedy from "Gilmore Girls" creator Amy Sherman-Palladino.

WHEN IT debuts tonight, "The Return of Jezebel James" won't be the worst comedy on television. It won't even be the worst comedy on Fox. But it's a very special, frustrating kind of bad, one with the power to actually change history. Not only does it make me wonder how so many talented people could create such a lousy show, it makes me question whether I was wrong for liking what these people did in the past.

Specifically, it's dumped all over my memories of "Gilmore Girls," the previous series from creator Amy Sherman-Palladino and husband/partner Daniel Palladino. So much of "Jezebel James" feels like a continuation or spin-off of "Gilmore," particularly the snappy dialogue and the central relationship between two female relatives (on "Gilmore," it was a mother and daughter who were more like sisters; here, it's the opposite), yet almost none of it works.

Parker Posey plays Sarah Tompkins, a successful children's book editor with a thriving career, a healthy (if limited) relationship with a businessman named Marcus (Scott Cohen) and the kind of canyon-sized New York apartment you only see on TV. (To make matters more confusing, the place completely changes from a brownstone to a loft between tonight's two episodes, with no explanation.) What she doesn't have but desperately wants (or so she thinks) is a baby, but her ob/gyn tells her she suffers from Asherman's syndrome.

"It means you can't conceive," the doctor tells her.

"Conceive... what?" asks an oblivious Sarah.

Ba-dum-bum.

The problem with that joke and pretty much all the jokes on "Jezebel James" is that there's something clever and maybe amusing on paper -- and all of them sound in some way like the sort of thing you'd imagine Lauren Graham or Liza Weil to throw around on "Gilmore Girls" -- but the execution and format kill them.

"Gilmore Girls" was a drama with comic moments, done in an hour format, on film, and with no laughtrack. "Jezebel James" is a more traditional half-hour sitcom, complete with audience laughter (real or canned), and it steps on every single joke.

With "Gilmore Girls," the punchlines came by so quickly, and with no intrusion by the audience, that you either laughed or smiled or didn't get the reference entirely, but another seven or eight jokes would be along in a hurry. "Jezebel James" has to stop to let in the laughter, and it kills the pace, as well as using yellow highlighter on jokes that maybe don't deserve it. When Sarah explains to a boy that she didn't actually write the book where his favorite character died -- "I didn't make him die. I made him die quicker -- and with a fancier font." -- it's a decent line, but the laughter that follows it isn't flattering. And, like I said, it makes me wonder, even a little, whether I went easy on "Gilmore Girls" because of its pace.

Going laughtrack-free is a more forgiving format for comedy writers. If you have a so-so joke that's just there in the middle of a scene, no worries. But if that so-so joke is accompanied by real or fake laughter, it had better be funny enough to seem worthy of it, or else it goes from a so-so joke to a "Why are they laughing? That wasn't funny!" joke. The tougher task of feeding the laughtrack monster is why writers for traditional sitcoms often look down their noses at people who work on shows like "Gilmore Girls" or "Scrubs."

The Palladinos have plenty of experience at feeding the monster, as they both spent years on traditional sitcoms like "Who's the Boss?" and "Roseanne." But it's been a while, and even Sherman-Palladino admitted that while she was happy to have instant audience response to her work, parts of it didn't work out as planned.

"Audiences get into a groove," she told reporters last July at a "Jezebel James" press conference, "and they laugh at things and you're like, 'Uh, hey, that's not funny. Stop it.' But they just get into a groove and they're so excited to laugh -- I don't know what's going on at home with them, but they just want to laugh."

There are a few moments in "Jezebel James" where the product on screen almost seems deserving of the audience's response -- usually when Posey's bantering with Lauren Ambrose, who plays Sarah's estranged, potential surrogate sister Coco -- but in general it doesn't do a good job of showcasing any of the talent in front of or behind the camera. Indie film vet Posey can be wickedly funny -- see her as one of the Starbucks people from "Best in Show" -- but here she mostly provides evidence of what a great job Lauren Graham did with her "Gilmore Girls" dialogue.

Or maybe it's just the format. Maybe if you took Graham and Alexis Bledel and the rest of the "Gilmore Girls" cast and squeezed them into a half hour, in front of an audience of people desperate to laugh because of what's going on at home, the material would have seemed just as fake and shticky.

http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/sep...330.xml&coll=1

The pilot wasn't too bad. I think I LOL twice which is still a lot more than I can say about some of the other new sitcoms I've seen this year.

Didn't care much for the second episode though. I'll probably watch it again next week. I like the Coco character.

03-14-2008, 10:46 PM	#1
Skywalker Member Forum Fanatic Join Date: Apr 04, 2003 Posts: 14,204	Shameless 'Jezebel' is Biblically Bad Shameless 'Jezebel' is biblically bad By Robert Bianco, USA TODAY Keep moving, Gilmore Girls fans. Nothing to see here. Anyone hoping that even some of the charm, warmth and wit of Amy Sherman-Palladino's Girls has carried over to her Fox sitcom will be disappointed and possibly horrified. The pop-culture riffs and bullet-fast chattiness are still here, but they're now attached to two impossible-to-like characters trapped in an impossible-to-believe situation. If nothing else, The Return of Jezebel James will give you new respect for Lauren Graham, who made those Girls monologues seem natural and enchanting. Turned over to Parker Posey, Sherman-Palladino's just-keep-talking style becomes as annoying in fiction as it would in real life. Posey stars as Sarah, an editor of children's books who decides she wants a child of her own. Unable to conceive, she asks her estranged "free spirit" sister, Coco (Lauren Ambrose), to carry the baby. They fight, as well they might, considering it's a lot to ask of a woman you shuttled off to rehab and had evicted. Yet Coco says yes — and why not, since the character seems to mutate from line to line, depending on whatever joke Sherman-Palladino wants to make next. Posey is a fine actress, but she has found neither her character nor a workable sitcom style. Ambrose seems even more at sea, but then Coco makes so little sense that you can hardly blame her. Even if the performances were better and the scripts were funnier, Jezebel would still be saddled with one of the most preposterous, off-putting setups in sitcom history. And think of the months of promised non-fun ahead, as Coco gets pregnant, has the child — and then what? Stays? Leaves? Demands custody? Chances are Sherman-Palladino will never have to figure that one out. http://www.usatoday.com/life/televis...l_N.htm?csp=34

03-14-2008, 11:00 PM	#2
Dean Winchester Member Forum Fanatic Join Date: Sep 28, 2003 Location: Louisville KY Posts: 14,803	I was really disappointed, I love Parker and Lauren but the show sucked

03-14-2008, 11:22 PM	#3
Skywalker Member Forum Fanatic Join Date: Apr 04, 2003 Posts: 14,204	Alan Sepinwall on TV Friday, March 14, 2008 BY ALAN SEPINWALL Star-Ledger Staff The Return of Jezebel James (Tonight at 8 on Channel 5) A successful book editor (Parker Posey) who wants a baby but can't conceive asks her estranged younger sister (Lauren Ambrose) to be a surrogate in a new comedy from "Gilmore Girls" creator Amy Sherman-Palladino. WHEN IT debuts tonight, "The Return of Jezebel James" won't be the worst comedy on television. It won't even be the worst comedy on Fox. But it's a very special, frustrating kind of bad, one with the power to actually change history. Not only does it make me wonder how so many talented people could create such a lousy show, it makes me question whether I was wrong for liking what these people did in the past. Specifically, it's dumped all over my memories of "Gilmore Girls," the previous series from creator Amy Sherman-Palladino and husband/partner Daniel Palladino. So much of "Jezebel James" feels like a continuation or spin-off of "Gilmore," particularly the snappy dialogue and the central relationship between two female relatives (on "Gilmore," it was a mother and daughter who were more like sisters; here, it's the opposite), yet almost none of it works. Parker Posey plays Sarah Tompkins, a successful children's book editor with a thriving career, a healthy (if limited) relationship with a businessman named Marcus (Scott Cohen) and the kind of canyon-sized New York apartment you only see on TV. (To make matters more confusing, the place completely changes from a brownstone to a loft between tonight's two episodes, with no explanation.) What she doesn't have but desperately wants (or so she thinks) is a baby, but her ob/gyn tells her she suffers from Asherman's syndrome. "It means you can't conceive," the doctor tells her. "Conceive... what?" asks an oblivious Sarah. Ba-dum-bum. The problem with that joke and pretty much all the jokes on "Jezebel James" is that there's something clever and maybe amusing on paper -- and all of them sound in some way like the sort of thing you'd imagine Lauren Graham or Liza Weil to throw around on "Gilmore Girls" -- but the execution and format kill them. "Gilmore Girls" was a drama with comic moments, done in an hour format, on film, and with no laughtrack. "Jezebel James" is a more traditional half-hour sitcom, complete with audience laughter (real or canned), and it steps on every single joke. With "Gilmore Girls," the punchlines came by so quickly, and with no intrusion by the audience, that you either laughed or smiled or didn't get the reference entirely, but another seven or eight jokes would be along in a hurry. "Jezebel James" has to stop to let in the laughter, and it kills the pace, as well as using yellow highlighter on jokes that maybe don't deserve it. When Sarah explains to a boy that she didn't actually write the book where his favorite character died -- "I didn't make him die. I made him die quicker -- and with a fancier font." -- it's a decent line, but the laughter that follows it isn't flattering. And, like I said, it makes me wonder, even a little, whether I went easy on "Gilmore Girls" because of its pace. Going laughtrack-free is a more forgiving format for comedy writers. If you have a so-so joke that's just there in the middle of a scene, no worries. But if that so-so joke is accompanied by real or fake laughter, it had better be funny enough to seem worthy of it, or else it goes from a so-so joke to a "Why are they laughing? That wasn't funny!" joke. The tougher task of feeding the laughtrack monster is why writers for traditional sitcoms often look down their noses at people who work on shows like "Gilmore Girls" or "Scrubs." The Palladinos have plenty of experience at feeding the monster, as they both spent years on traditional sitcoms like "Who's the Boss?" and "Roseanne." But it's been a while, and even Sherman-Palladino admitted that while she was happy to have instant audience response to her work, parts of it didn't work out as planned. "Audiences get into a groove," she told reporters last July at a "Jezebel James" press conference, "and they laugh at things and you're like, 'Uh, hey, that's not funny. Stop it.' But they just get into a groove and they're so excited to laugh -- I don't know what's going on at home with them, but they just want to laugh." There are a few moments in "Jezebel James" where the product on screen almost seems deserving of the audience's response -- usually when Posey's bantering with Lauren Ambrose, who plays Sarah's estranged, potential surrogate sister Coco -- but in general it doesn't do a good job of showcasing any of the talent in front of or behind the camera. Indie film vet Posey can be wickedly funny -- see her as one of the Starbucks people from "Best in Show" -- but here she mostly provides evidence of what a great job Lauren Graham did with her "Gilmore Girls" dialogue. Or maybe it's just the format. Maybe if you took Graham and Alexis Bledel and the rest of the "Gilmore Girls" cast and squeezed them into a half hour, in front of an audience of people desperate to laugh because of what's going on at home, the material would have seemed just as fake and shticky. http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/sep...330.xml&coll=1 The pilot wasn't too bad. I think I LOL twice which is still a lot more than I can say about some of the other new sitcoms I've seen this year. Didn't care much for the second episode though. I'll probably watch it again next week. I like the Coco character.