"We need more dramas like 'Men of a Certain Age'" (Tim Surette, TV.com)

Let's be honest: Men of a Certain Age, which wrapped up its second season on Wednesday, never really stood a chance at a long run on television. I've recommended it to countless people in person, over the phone, on TV.com, but despite how fantastic I say the acting and writing is, I always faced the same dreaded question from potential viewers: What's it about?

-- Tim Surette, in "Did We Just See the End
of Men of a Certain Age?" on TV.com

by Ken

I haven't watched the season finale of Men of a Certain Age yet, so I have to be careful about spoilers -- to protect myself.

Looking back, I'm relieved to see that I weighed in strongly about Men of a Certain Age, after greeting it with certain reservations, when it came to the first-season finale:

I see online that the show's fans have reason to believe that its renewal is in serious doubt. On TNT's part I find this (a) shocking and (b) really stupid. Do the programming geniuses there really imagine they can fill that hour with anything that might bring them: (a) more prestige, (b) better word of mouth, or (c) a shot at better ratings?

Now I see that once again renewal is in doubt. And this time I have to say that the blame doesn't fall entirely on TNT. Oh, I'm sure they could have marshaled a stronger effort, but in this case, I think they've really tried. Often I complain, when it comes to unconventional shows that their networks don't seem really to get behind, that the powers-that-be either don't get what they have or are afraid to market it honestly for what it is, in an effort at least to connect it to the people who would enjoy such a show. I'm more inclined in the case of Men of a Certain Age than in most cases that its network, TNT, really has tried to promote the show without trying to pretend it's something it isn't. The show has, after all, three fairly familiar stars, who I have to think are on the whole generally liked by the viewing public, and it deals with situations and problems that I would think would resonate with most viewers, and I think the promotions have tried to communicate that.

But TV.com's Tim Surette makes an excellent point when he explains how he has tried to explain what the show is "about":

Ray Romano (Joe), Scott Bakula (Terry), Andre Braugher (Owen)

Ugh. That's where the conversation derails. "It's about three middle-aged men dealing with middle-aged stuff like divorce, health issues, and being friends. One of them is trying to make the Senior Golf Tour and runs a party supply store. Another one owns a car dealership. And the last guy is sort of a loser. Oh and in the mid-season finale, they all got colonoscopies together!"

After that uninspiring spiel, whoever I'm talking to politely explains that they need to go wash their hair and walks away from the conversation, even though I can still smell the shampoo from their morning shower. And I guess that's the problem: Men of a Certain Age doesn't solve crimes, doesn't feature parallel universes, doesn't ever get more exciting than a local news spot. It's too much like real life -- and the majority of viewers, by the time they get home from their soul-crushing jobs each day, have had enough real life without turning on the boob tube to watch someone else's.

And Tim, bless him, has a good read on the case that's to be made for the show.

Men of a Certain Age is not only about real life but everything that makes it special -- the ups and the downs; the regrets and the sweet, sweet triumphs; the pain you learn from and the love that makes you stronger. Those "real life" life lessons are what inspire me, as a viewer, to go out and be a better human being.

Which brings me to this: We need more dramas like Men of a Certain Age. Dramas that aren't an escape from our humdrum reality, but rather enhance our perception of our humdrum reality.

Yes! Exactly, Tim! And it's totally woven into the plot lines for all three central characters. As Tim writes:

When I see Noah Wyle punch a space spider in the face and drag him back to HQ, I don't go out the next day and help an old lady across the street. But when Terry decides to get his life on the right track, Joe overcomes nervousness on an awkward date, or Owen stands up to his father, it hits *chokes up, points to his heart* right here, man, and I feel an overwhelming urge to call my mom and tell her I love her or hug my cat. On a personal level, there's a lot more to take away from watching an episode of Men of a Certain Age. Some call it "that fuzzy feeling," some compare it to fatherly advice, I call it virtual experience. Men of a Certain Age never set out to wow its audience, it only attempted -- and successfully accomplished -- creating something its audience can relate to.

Sadly, word on the street is that Men of a Certain Age is a long shot for a Season 3 renewal. Looks like it's back to humdrum reality for all of us.

Sigh.


UPDATE: MEN OF A CERTAIN AGE CO-CREATOR AND EXEC
PRODUCER MIKE ROYCE SAYS, "HOPE IS IN NO WAY LOST"

Howie passed along this tweet, and while there's nothing clickable in my copied version (remember, I'm il-twit-erate), I thought the message was worth passing along:

MikeRoyce Mike Royce
@
@downwithtyranny appreciate all the nice words. You are right to fret but hope is in no way lost.

This is definitely encouraging. I'm sure Mike and his team have no shortage of material for a third season, and to the TNT brain trust I would say the same thing I did last year: "Do the programming geniuses there really imagine they can fill that hour with anything that might bring them: (a) more prestige, (b) better word of mouth, or (c) a shot at better ratings?"

#

In honor of tonight's "Men of a Certain Age" season finale, we present the morning Oscar odds from London. Bet early and often!

TNT's official recap of last week's episode, in which Joe's chronic gambling problem took a scary upturn. The season (and possibly series?) finale airs tonight at 10pm ET/PT, 9pm CT.

by Ken

Stop the presses! The down-to-the-wire Oscar race between formerly married directors James Cameron (Avatar) and Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker) has taken a mind-blowing turn. As I learned from my e-mail this morning:

AVATAR CAUGHT BEHIND LOCKER ON OSCAR NIGHT

Following the success of The Hurt Locker at the BAFTA Awards [the British Academy Awards] in London last night top bookie Paddy Power have slashed the odds on the critically acclaimed Iraq war drama from 5/4 to 5/6 to win the Oscar for Best Picture at next months Academy Awards. 

The Hurt Locker has now replaced James Cameron’s sci-fi spectacular Avatar as favourite to win Best Picture and director Kathryn Bigelow is now the solid 1/3 favourite to also pick up the Oscar for Best Director.

 Paddy Power said “From a betting point of view it seems increasingly likely that James Cameron could lose out in the two main Oscar categories to none other than his ex-wife. Obviously they are two very different films but punters seem to think that The Hurt Locker ticks more boxes for the Academy than Avatar”

Could you just die, or what? Could this be any more exciting?

Of course I haven't seen either picture, or to the best recollection any of the others mentioned in the Paddy Power Oscar odds lists. But somehow the thought that you can bet the house, bet the farm, bet the kids makes it seem somehow all worthwhile. And provides a neat tie-in to tonight's season finale of Men of a Certain Age, the TNT comedy-drama about three longtime friends going through the stresses of 40-something-dom. You see, Joe (played by series co-creator Ray Romano) is a compulsive gambler.


So far, as degenerate gamblers go, Joe seems to have been extraordinariliy lucky, in that his party-store business has apparently been profitable enough overall to cover his week-in, week-out losses, though surely not without periodic stresses. It's hard to imagine that Joe's gambling wasn't a factor in the breakup of his marriage, and again last week it has, at least so far, cost him a promising relationship.

Last week we saw Joe up the stakes scarifyingly. The bet grew out of the sort real-world-based justification that's easy to believe would be sufficient stimulus for someone with his susceptibility: He had decided that his children's well-being depends on him buying a house, and it had to be in their present neighborhood, and for this he didn't have an adequate down payment. Once the bet was placed, we came about as close as those of us without a gambling instinct are apt to come to experiencing the playing out of such a bet.

There was relief when Joe got lucky, but not from the ticking time bomb of the gambling problem -- relief for Joe in the short-term, but none for the longer-term well-being of a man who really doesn't seem to understand that he has a problem, let alone how serious it is. And storm clouds are gathering. In addition to the budding relationship it seems to have deep-sixed (the woman, upon learning about the bet, even after it was safely won, had the excellent sense to run as fast as she could), I'm not expecting Joe's luck in financial matters to carry him through the season finale.

I've made my peace, or maybe just learned to live, with my earlier-expressed reservations about the show. I've had a fairly easy time sticking with it, because all three main characters' lives have been interestingly and believably explored, and each has been allowed at least some moments of temporary triumph. (Joe has shown signs of actually grasping that his marriage is kaput, and that he has to get on with his life. Owen (Andre Braugher) actually followed through fighting a bureaucratic boondoggle to begin restoring his endangered home to habitability, and even took a positive step last week in dead-end career situation. Peter Pan-ish "actor" Terry (Scott Bakula), who hasn't been doing much acting lately, while stuck in a far pleasanter groove (who doesn't envy his all-pleasure all-the-time lifestyle?), has begun to see that the clock of life is ticking on him too.

I see online that the show's fans have reason to believe that its renewal is in serious doubt. On TNT's part I find this (a) shocking and (b) really stupid. Do the programming geniuses there really imagine they can fill that hour with anything that might bring them: (a) more prestige, (b) better word of mouth, or (c) a shot at better ratings?

Once again, if the ratings aren't what the network hoped -- presumably based on the calculation that anybody who ever watched a show that featured Ray Romano, Scott Bakula, or Andre Braugher would watch this one, doesn't it ever occur to these goons to question whether they have any idea what they're doing? Do TV marketers ever look at a show in terms of the basic questions: (1) Who might want to watch it? And (2) how do we reach those people to let them know that this is a show they might want to watch?

As I've mentioned, Fox has an especially glaring record in this regard, having developed quite a number of genuinely fresh, well-executed shows it had no clue how to market. But I have to say that of all the cable networks that have gone into the business of producing their own series, TNT seems to think most like a junior imitation of a broadcast network, with a strong streak of dreary pseudo-bigtime conventionality in its program conception, casting, and selling.

I don't know whether Paddy Power is quoting odds on Men of a Certain Age's survival, but here are its Oscar odds as of this morning.

2010 ACADEMY AWARDS



Best Picture

5/6    The Hurt Locker (from 5/4)

10/11 Avatar (from 1/2) 

16/1   Inglorious Basterds

25/1   Up in the Air

40/1   Up

50/1   Precious

66/1   An Education

66/1   District 9

100/1 A Serious Man

125/1 The Blind Side



Best Director

1/3   Kathryn Bigelow (from 4/9)

2/1   James Cameron (from 7/5)

20/1 Quentin Tarantino

25/1 Jason Reitman

50/1 Lee Daniels



Best Actor

1/6   Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart)

6/1   George Clooney (Up In The Air)

10/1 Colin Firth (A Single Man) (from 14/1)

18/1 Morgan Freeman (Invictus)

18/1 Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker)



Best Actress

8/13 Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side) (from 4/6)

7/4  Meryl Streep (Julie & Julia) (from 13/8)

8/1  Carey Mulligan (An Education) (from 10/1)

12/1 Gabourey Sidibe (Precious)

33/1 Helen Mirren (The Last Station)



Best Supporting Actor

1/25  Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

11/1  Stanley Tucci - The Lovely Bones

14/1  Woody Harrelson - The Messengers

20/1  Matt Damon - Invictus
25/1  Christopher Plummer - The Last Station



Best Supporting Actress

1/16  Mo'Nique – Precious (from 1/12)

12/1  Penelope Cruz - Nine

12/1  Anna Kendrick - Up In The Air (from 8/1)

16/1  Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air

20/1  Maggie Gyllenhaal - Crazy Heart

There's so much to admire, even enjoy, in Men of a Certain Age, I just wish the show was somehow less relentless

by Ken

I need to hear from people who've been watching TNT's Men of a Certain Age, with Ray Romano, Andre Braugher, and Scott Bakula as high school buddies in their late 40s treading uneasily toward the 50 mark. For the record, it isn't absolutely clear to all of them just how late in their 40s they are. Joe (Ray R), the owner of a party store, newly separated with two children, insists he's just turned 47 and has to be corrected -- he's actually 48.

I've watched all three episodes now, and it wasn't without some difficulty -- not because it's badly done. In fact, the problem stems in good part from the fact that it's quite well done. Ray, who's a creator, producer, and writer of the show, is clearly serious about his character, who seems to me totally believable and far from unsympathetic.

There's something deeply unsettling about the combination of his obsessiveness to detail over which he really has very little control and which rarely matters much and his obliviousness to so much that really does matter, over which he has quite a lot of control, not least the gambling addiction that seems to have played a major role in ruining his marriage. Of course, people who have such addictions really do feel powerless to overcome them, and Joe's seemingly senseless inability to just stop it is one of the most persuasive portrayals I've seen of what it feels (and looks) like to be powerless against such a compulsion. If you look at it rationally, it seems preposterous; there's no earthly reason for Joe to keep getting sucked in. But of course his powerlessness against it has nothing to do with rationality, and I'm finding it almost unbearably painful to watch. If it weren't so unbelievable, it wouldn't be anywhere near so hard to watch.

Terry (Scott B) is the least unhappy of the trio in his slide toward obscurity, with his much superior abiltiy to take life as it comes, especially since he, unlike the others, has no responsibilities to anyone but himself. His acting career may be in decline (he can't seem to get a decent audition, let alone an acting job), but he manages to make ends meet somehow without much stress, and perhaps more important to his friends is never at a loss for a sex partner. And yet, as little as Terry is given to introspection as Terry is, he clearly has moments -- of seemingly increasing frequency and severity -- in which his life seems intolerable. There's a horribly painful plot line in which he successfully tracks down the driver who ran a stop sign and by sheer luck only brushed his car. He tracks him down, rings his doorbell, and has no idea what to do from there, no idea what will make it right, or better. It's as if there is this growing itch, or ache, inside him, that is intruding more and more on his reality, and about which he has no idea what to do.

At least Owen (Andre B, coming off his riveting performance as House's psychiatrist) has a relatively happy home life -- if he ever gets his home back in order from the renovations he and his wife (the excellent LisaGay Hamilton, who was Rebecca on The Practice) are doing. He's stuck, as he approaches that sensitive age, seriously out of shape, in a job he hates, working in the fiercely competitive environment of his dictatorial father's Chevy dealership. The word "trapped" springs to mind for all of these people.

I notice that in the show's promotional material there's a lot of talk about humor, and I guess it's there, just as it is in real life. But at least for me, it doesn't seem to lighten the load. I'm wondering how other viewers are coping. I don't want the show to be unfaithful to the premises it has set up, suddenly turning all happy. Still, I think of a show like Six Feet Under, which managed to be not a whole lot cheerier while still making the journey somehow less exhausting. Meanwhile, there's so much I like about the show, I guess I'll just have to tough it out.

#