I'm loving the new season of "Nurse Jackie" and rewatching "Shameless," but I've got a bad feeling about "The Borgias"

A preview of tonight's new episode of Showtime's Nurse Jackie, which airs at 10pm ET/PT

"Don't take this the wrong way, sweetheart, but you are an amazing fucking liar. World-class, genius."

-- Eddie (Paul Schulze), to Jackie (Edie Falco),
on last week's episode of Nurse Jackie

"Every now and then a child comes along who makes me believe in the existence of Satan."

-- the principal or assistant principal (depending who you believe),
about 9-year-old Carl Gallagher, in Shameless Episode 6, "Killer Carl"

"No getting around it, the Borgias are hot. They've even got their own series coming up on Showtime, debuting April 3, with Jeremy Irons playing the patriarch of the clan, that sweetheart Rodrigo Borgia, better known to us by his later professional name, Pope Alexander VI. Always ahead of his time, Will Cuppy here offers a characteristically affectionate portrait of the apple of Rodrigo's . . . er, Pope Alex's eye, his cutie pie of a daughter, Lucrezia. It's in this piece, by the way, that Will describes the Italian Renaissance as "that great flowering of this and that."

-- me, in a "Will Cuppy Tonight" post, presenting his Decline
and Fall of Practically Everybody profile of Lucrezia Borgia

by Ken

As I mentioned last night, I had planned to do this post then, before the airing of the second episode of Showtime's new "dramatic" serires The Borgias, but decided it would be more productive to hold off till I had another episode under my belt. On the whole I find my apprehensions tending to be confirmed, even though I can't say I watched the episode all that carefully. Is it possible to watch the show carefully? Despite its pretensions to be grappling with major historical and dramatic issues, it's so insubstantial, when it's not being downright silly, that it really isn't easy to focus on. I have to do some serious reckoning as to whether I want to try to watch the episode again, and then some more reckoning as to whether I want to even record another episode.

So let's talk about something else, namely the Showtime shows I like. I've been continuing to rewatch the Season 1 episodes of Shameless, and not only am I picking up all sorts of stuff that went over me the first time through, I'm appreciating the show even more -- although I have to say I'm not finding it as exhilarating as I did the first time through. Even though there is that surface crackle and pop, the realities for which all of these characters are forced to settle seem to me so monstrous that I find myself increasingly in despair for them.

The more I watch William H. Macy as pater familias Frank Gallagher, the more appalled I am -- all the highfalutin self-justifying bullshit that comes out of his mouth becomes just about unbearable. There are other factors, of course (there always are in life), but his life is what it is because he's lazy and shiftless and hasn't a clue about personal responsibility, and for all the beatings he takes (and I mean not just psychological but just plain physical beatings, which he earns regularly), he's having a way better time living life as a leech than he ought to.

And to have brought six children into the world? With a woman, poor Monica (Chloe Webb), who at least meant well and might not have been such a crap mother if she hadn't been chained to such a piece of human garbage. The older kids -- 21-year-old Fiona (Emmy Rossum), 17-year-old Lip (Jeremy Allen White), and 16-year-old Ian (Cameron Monaghan) are at least well-socialized human beings, for all the waste and destruction of their lives -- notwithstanding Fiona's complete package of brains and beauty and loyalty and compassion; or Lip's genius-level brilliance, which makes him so smart that he can't see any payoff for the path to academic legitimacy suddenly offered the the University of Chicago professor (played by that spectacular actor Dennis Boutsoukaris), who in his moonlighting job as an investigator for the Education Evaluation Service catches Lip in his SAT-taking scam; or Ian's unique brand of smarts and capacity for focus and discipline (as with his ROTC commitment).

But what about the younger kids? At one point Fiona, left with the burden of makeshift motherhood by Monica's abandonment, voices an obviously deeply felt dread that she's failed her younger siblings. Well, it's not her fault, but my goodness, what can we hope for 10-year-old Debbie, so bright and sweet and sensitive and also so whacked-out that she lives in her own world and kidnaps a two-year-old boy? (Why? Because there wasn't a girl available. So she dressed and made up the little kidnap victim as a girl.) And 9-year-old Carl? That quote from the principal (or assistant principal, as executive producer John Wells refers to him in one of Showtime's promotional videos) is no exaggeration. This poor child shows no signs of mental activity or desire that isn't directed at inflicting pain. Is it possible for a child to be beyond redemption by such a tender age? Carl makes a good case.



And all this while I'm totally grabbed by these characters, who've been created with such believability and texture and depth that I find it all but impossible not to care about them. I begin to wonder, though, whether a second season, if done as relatively honestly as the first, will be such a treat.

The level of desperation is of course much less intense in Nurse Jackie, but beyond the enormous personal appeal of Edie Falco's Jackie, these characters too have been created by the writers and actors with almost unbelievable grabbingness. Incredibly, after all of Jackie's lies seemed to blow up on her at the end of Season 2, she seems to be trying to just pick things up where they left off, though her husband, Kevin (Dominic Fumusa), remains so distrustful that he's taken over parental responsibility for their two girls' schooling.

It's been fascinating to discover in recent episodes that all the time Jackie was having her affair, or whatever it was, with Eddie the pharmacist (Paul Schulze), neither he nor anyone else at All Saints had any idea that she was married. (Wow, is that fascinating or what?) Again, it's hard to resist the appeal of the characters -- Jackie's not-really-prot&eacuteg´e Zoey (Merritt Wever); her once and no doubt future friend Dr. O'Hara (Eve Best), even hospital administrator Akalitus (Anna Deavere Smith), with her current fixation on taking advantage of the (real-world) demise of St. Vincent's Medical Center, offering the possibility of wangling its promised visit from First Lady Michelle Obama, over the wily opposition of her ruthless counterpart at Bellevue, and even not-so-lovable clod Dr. Cooper (Peter Facinelli).

As much as I'm filled with dread by the unreachable darkness of Jackie and Kevin's older daughter, I really love the show. I guess what it comes down to is that for all the characters' troubles, I really enjoy their company.

And then there's what now appears to be a program "categor": Showtime pseudohistorical drama, where character names and identities drawn from real history are set loose in a mounting potpourri of silliness. Jeremy Irons as that ultimate conniver Rodrigo Borgia, who managed to get himself elected Pope Alexander VI in the first episode, chews every rug in sight. For one episode it seemed as if there might be something going on, or worth waiting for. After a casual semi-viewing, the pattern is looking familiar. I actually made it through a whole season of Showtime's The Tudors before bailing out.

#