LAST NIGHT'S episode of Being Erica was its fifth, and last in the Monday 9pm timeslot. Whether or not it eventually becomes the hit that CBC needs it to be, anecdotally, at least in my crowd, it's got a high level of awareness and a diverging set of critical reactions.
Last night's episode was the first one since the pilot that I've watched beginning til end. (I missed one show altogether, and lost interest halfway through a couple of others.)
Comments from people who've watched the show and decided not to stick with it have pointed to the hour long format as a barrier. I've heard words like "padded", "thin", and "slow-moving" to describe the reaction.
I also heard a word that's gotta be a death-sentence whenever any Canadian utters it: "smug." It seems for a few people I've talked to -- especially a few women, the chirpy v/o's of Erica Strange can range from the cloying to the judgemental. They don't buy the life lessons at the end.
People are divided on Michael Riley. Some like him, some not so much.
Pretty much everybody agrees, though, that the show makes Toronto look beautiful.
I put the snarky up front there -- and contrasted it with my own inability to get through a couple of episodes, in order to let the rest of this post play out the point that I wanted to stress.
I really enjoyed last night's episode.
For the first time, the hour didn't seem padded. The music choice was integrated into the plot, and not just used as aural wallpaper to evoke a certain year.
Now, considering I'm always going on here about wanting to judge Canadian work by the same yardstick as U.S. shows, it bears pointing out that it often takes U.S. shows four or five episodes to settle into its tone...to "lock in", as it were. And full disclosure, the main reason I tuned in at all last night was because my friend Daegan Fryklind had the "written by" on the ep.
But once the episode was over, and I realized I'd really, really enjoyed it, I wanted to figure out why. What made it different, or more successful. And for what it's worth, here's what I came up with.
Relatable problems in the past and present
Past eps have featured Erica regretting not joining a secret literary society and revisting a class where she was cowed by a bully of a professor. The present problems were getting the right job, or being able to speak up for yourself. I half-tuned to both.
Last night, the problem was Erica being hurt that her best friend chose a lesbian couple as godparents over her. She hated being seen as 'the wacky aunt.' When she went back to the past, we were treated to a re-do of Erica's Bat Mitzvah, which she walked out on the first time cause a boy embarrassed and insulted her. Even though a Bat Mitzvah is a religious ceremony that only Jews go through, both problems somehow felt more universal.
Attitude of the protagonists
It struck me watching last night, that everyone -- every character, was acting from a place of good intentions. There were no cartoony bad people, like the uberbitch boss, or the overbearing professor. Instead, as befits a show where the protagonist flips back and forth in time, it's our interpretations of our own actions, and how we misread the intentions of others, that set the tone.
Fun with the Sci Fi element
This has been the element that's gotten me to hang in longer with Erica than I would have normally. In a past episode, she passed off Britney Spears' "Baby One More Time" as her own poetry, which was fun. But in last night's ep, we got the full Freaky Friday element. When she returned to the past, Erica was played not by the winning Erin Karpluk, but by teen Samantha Weinstein. So you were given the great spectacle of seeing a young teen talk like a wizened 32 year old. It juiced the premise just that little bit more.
Make the Music Work for You
Last night, the show featured two very different Karaoke renditions of "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun." Both worked. That is all.
Heart in the Family Story
One of the stories they've goosed along the way is that something terrible happened to Erica's brother, and he died. You don't know why. Well, last night they didn't answer any of that, but in the interaction between older brother and the 13 year old Erica, you saw some of Erica's adoration of her big brother, and it was heartfelt and moving. There wasn't any smugness between the friends, too. The whole thing was very low key, and it suited the tone well.
I'm not sure there's not much more to it than that. The Exec Producers were candid about trying to find the right balance in the stories when they spoke to me for this column. I've noticed in the last couple of eps a desire to "get back to the past already." Not last night.
In relatability, heart, and execution, I really thought last night's show was a high point, and the first show that fulfilled the promise of the pilot -- improving on it in a few key ways, too. I hope they use more of Samantha Weinstein too. As wonderful as Erin Karpluk is, the two of them essaying Erica at different ages is even better.
Hope the move to Wednesdays continues a path to success.
You can watch the Feb 2nd Erica episode online at cbc.ca or buy it on Itunes if you're curious. (Canada only.)
4 rumbles:
I'm still mystified this wasn't a half hour. A woman going back in time and trying to straighten out her youth seems a natural for a comedy. And then you could skip the idea that she's learning lessons, which is always awkward in a TV series, where characters must remain consistent. And you don't have to take so seriously the idea that failing to make out with your prom date ruined your life.
That was a really good analysis, Denis. You made good points about relatable problems and cartoon-y antagonists. The series certainly has some problems to overcome, including Alex's point that this is a natural half hour -- and also, how much past can a 32 year old really have.
But the series has a lot going for it too. The tone seems to be just right for audience.
I hope to see the episodes continue to mature as the season goes on.
This was the first episode where the Tom character's quoting didn't strike me as being obnoxious.
Aside from that, I've been enjoying the show immensely since the pilot. My favorite shows tend to be heavily serialized, and the fact that characters can grow and change over time is one of the things I like about them. I get annoyed with shows that prevent their characters from changing. For example, in shows that are largely driven by a romantic tension, seeing the characters get together and break apart over and over again gets tedious after a few seasons as the reasons for the breakups (and the reunions) get more and more contrived.
For "Being Erica", the central tension of the show is between Erica and her hangups and insecurities. If she were never able to overcome them, she'd start to seem like a real loser.
Re: half-hour vs hour, the people who see this as a comedy are talking about a completely different show. I love the show, but it is not funny. It's kind of the anti-"30 Rock". The funniness thing even came up in your interview with the head writer! Speaking of which, I'm still looking forward to seeing some more of that.
I liked your point about the characters having good intentions this episode. Also: well thought out time-travel plots! It's rare.
Yeah I'm particularly sensitive to the "half hour" thing because I'm writing a show right now with a female protagonist and I've been told, "maybe it should be a half hour."
Here's the thing though, I haven't seen a half hour comedy-drama that really worked. Californication and Entourage don't count. They're both more outlandish and comic than the tone I'm looking for (and they also have the luxury of being 25 minute half hours not 20 minute half hours for broadcast tv)
The version of the show I'm doing that could be a half hour is very different. It has fewer characters, less story, and the emphasis is different. And I think, so is the tone, by necessity.
I also don't get why Erica "screams to be a half hour."
That criticism is rooted, I think, in the conception that the plot moved too slowly and the scenes weren't dynamic enough. That's not a reason to make the show a half hour. That's a reason to go back into your structure and ask yourself why your scenes lack tension and dynanism. And that's why I thought this week was a step up. There were things bubbling over the margins of every scene -- and often two things going on in the scene at the same time.
Going back to childhood certainly helped, too. I think maybe if they continued to have problems, what I would do (and probably totally break the budget doing it) is to thematically break down the fears and go back to a couple of different eras per show -- one with younger Karpluk, and one with Younger weinstein (or you'd probably have to find an actor who could play 10-13.) That might fix the "32 year old doesn't have a lot of history." problem.
Post a Comment