THE SHOW GOES ON

Sometimes in the brouhaha we miss out on the finer points.

I watched the premiere of “The Conners” this week and then read the uproar on Twitter. No Roseanne, no show. People trashed the show although I’m sure many did so without watching. I don’t begrudge (non) viewers for sitting things out after Roseanne’s firing, but I do cry foul when they call the show “crap” without seeing it.

I loved Roseanne before she ever had a hit show. I remember seeing her on “The Tonight Show”, having a VHS tape of her Domestic Goddess stand-up routine and watching it repeatedly when I needed a good laugh. I don’t think I missed an episode of “Roseanne” and I appreciated the inclusion of LGBT characters, namely, Sandra Bernhard’s Nancy and Martin Mull’s Leon. To be sure, Roseanne as a person has polarized many times in the public eye. She’s an individual who would be challenging for any producer, showrunner or agent to rein in. (I suspect many of the people who were most offended by her infamous singing of the national anthem were among the angry mob decrying her firing for referring to Valerie Jarrett as a Planet of the Apes offspring.) People can agree to disagree on whether she deserved to be fired for her “bad joke”, tweeted while on Ambien. As was the case with Kevin Spacey’s “House of Cards”, to cancel the entire show would have unjustly affected far more people.

I was not a fan of “Valerie” after they axed Valerie Harper and changed the name to “Valerie’s Family: The Hogans” (later, “The Hogans”). I did watch a few episodes, however, primarily because I could see that Jason Bateman, even at that age, was a true talent and Edie McClurg is a hoot in anything she does. To be clear, as a rabid, lifelong fan of “The Mary Tyler Moore Show”, I will always be #TeamValerie and her masterful comedic talent was sorely missed as producers tried to salvage a hit show. Ultimately, I stopped watching but not until giving the reboot a shot. Deep disappointment will always follow a star’s exit from a show, regardless of the circumstances. I sorely missed Delta Burke on “Designing Women”, Shelley Long on “Cheers” and even Suzanne Somers on “Three’s Company”, but continued to watch two out of three of the sitcoms. (John Ritter’s pratfalls and exaggerated gay mannerisms were too off-putting.)

What the abstainers of “The Conners” missed, beyond the continued fine acting of John Goodman, Laurie Metcalf and Sara Gilbert”, was the further development of an important storyline from last season on “Roseanne”: the acceptance of Darlene’s ten-year-old son, Mark, as he confidently explores gender identity and sexual orientation. Last season, Roseanne and Darlene accepted Mark in his choice of clothing while Dan remained uncomfortable. Without his Rosie in the premier of “The Conners”, Dan had to come to terms with Mark on his own. At first, he tried to opt out of offering advice over which boy crush Mark should sit beside on the bus ride to a school field trip, but then Dan came around and helped Mark create a pro and con list for each boy. (Ultimately, Dan favored the seemingly well-adjusted boy whose family has money—they vacation in places where you get a tan!—while Mark decided on the brooding boy instead.)

I am curious to see how Mark’s character will develop over the course of “The Conners”. This is a great opportunity for a positive portrayal of LGBTQ acceptance and gender fluidity on a major television network. Frankly, I think there is more time to develop this without Roseanne on the show even though I am confident that Roseanne was fully in favor, perhaps even instrumental (along with Gilbert), in introducing this character. We all know that Roseanne is larger than life and a show with her can’t help but stay on her as the primary focus. Last season, Mark’s character got a lot of attention in the first episode and then wasn’t developed further. With a major character out of the mix, others will receive more airtime. (Heck, even DJ got a couple of lines this week!)

I contrast Mark’s role on “The Conners” with another show that I saw for the first time last night, “The Cool Kids”. On this particular episode, Leslie Jordan’s Sid, a gay senior citizen, tries to suppress every cliched gay mannerism and decor choice so he can remain closeted in front of his clueless (ha ha!) adult son. Nothing subtle there. Call it “Three’s Company, 2018”. I laughed once or twice simply because Leslie Jordan is that good at playing flamboyant and just watching his efforts to contain his hip movement showed a mastery of physical comedy. But the broad strokes of “The Cool Kids” feels truly old-school compared to the more nuanced, matter-of-fact portrayal of Mark on “The Conners”.

The premiere of “The Conners” was bound to generate strong reactions on Twitter. (The whole “it’s not ‘Roseanne’ without Roseanne” argument seemed the silliest—hence the name change, folks!) The naysayers certainly had their say. Now I hope the writers on “The Conners” and the actors continue to enlighten and amuse with thoughtful stories and exemplary acting for as long as ABC decides it’s a viable show.

LIFE WITHOUT “PARTNERS”

When CBS cancelled its freshman sitcom within twenty-four hours of ABC’s axing of “Last Resort” and “666 Park Avenue,” the Internet furor never came.  Of the three shows, “Partners” generated the least network hate.  While the show was okay, it was far from must-see TV.

There was a time when I’d tune in to any show that featured a gay character.  I wanted to see Billy Crystal on “Soap”, but my mother forbid me from watching.  The first regular gay characters I remember were Steven Carrington on Dynasty and that throw-away gay couple that engaged in the first televised same sex bed scene on “thirtysomething”.  In the 1990s, I remember gathering with a group of friends on Monday nights to see if Matt would ever gain a sex life on “Melrose Place”.  Then came “Will & Grace” and the British and American versions of “Queer as Folk.” (I tried but I couldn’t stick with the American version.  The actor who played Michael annoyed me in every scene.) 

Yes, it used to be that gay characters on TV created Event Viewing for a gay man.  It is a sign of progress that such is no longer the case.  Admittedly, I stuck with a couple of extra seasons of “Brothers & Sisters”, primarily because of how adorable Kevin’s beau, Scotty, was.  (Oh, Luke Macfarlane, come back!)  While I regularly watch Cam and Mitchell on “Modern Family”, I choose to watch because the whole darn show is hysterical and all the actors are so talented.  Tossing in a needless gay couple on “Desperate Housewives” did not sustain my interest, I was a fickle fan of the dark, sometimes morose “Six Feet Under” with Michael C. Hall playing the gay brother and my days of feeling gleeful about “Glee” are past.

This fall, I looked forward to two new series that prominently featured gay characters.  Ryan Murphy’s “The New Normal” garnered more publicity, including threatened boycotts from the two dozen members of One Million Moms.  I watched a trailer of the show back in June and predicted the show would be dead on arrival.  I have watched two episodes and the only interesting character is the sage Shania Clemmons (played by Bebe Wood), the young daughter of the gay couple’s surrogate mom.  It has been given a full season order, not because anyone is talking about it around the water cooler, but I suspect because networks want in on Murphy’s Next Big Thing, assuming he has something left in the tank.

I felt “Partners” was the better show and watched it whenever I made it home early enough from the ferry on Monday nights.  It was fine, something to watch as I made dinner or checked emails.  Louis, as played by Michael Urie, was a married version of his character Marc St. James from “Ugly Betty”.  Moreover, there was something even more familiar.  The show might as well have been called “Will & Jack” as Louis was a slight tweaking of Sean Hayes’ Jack McFarland and his straight friend-for-life Joe had an uncanny resemblance to Eric McCormack’s Will Truman. (So often, I could hear McCormack’s voice delivering the lines.)  Been there, done that.  And better to boot!

Despite having a gay couple as half the main cast, “Partners” was nothing new.  It failed, not because America doesn’t want gays invading their living rooms, but because it had little to offer.  As over the top as Louis may have been, I liked him.  Can’t say the same for the other characters which were different incarnations of bland.  I confused the sassy office worker from “The New Normal” with the one on “Partners”—both parts are utterly disposable.  (Too bad they couldn’t poach David Spade.)  Most egregious was the depiction of Louis’ boyfriend, Wyatt, played by Superman stud Brandon Routh.  Who decided to make this piece of eye candy intentionally flavorless?  Wyatt was essentially a non-character.  If the creators wanted to cast someone to give a flat delivery of lines, why not go back to the original source and bring on Shelley Morrison’s Rosario?  (There’s got to be a Members Only jacket for sale on eBay.)   Finally, “Partners” did not fit in its time slot, not smart enough to follow “How I Met Your Mother” and not dumb enough to precede “Two Broke Girls”.  Simply stated, it was not enough.

It was “nice” knowing “Partners” for a couple of months, but we all know that relationships must evolve beyond nice.  This is one amicable breakup.