Why "America's Got Talent" is Part of the Problem

(original published at the now-defunct www.poweredbyshows.com)

Just to set things absolutely straight before we go on, I am a very big fan of reality television. Despite the fact that since last March Entertainment Weekly has declared the absolutely true notion that we are currently living in a “Golden Age of Television” in this country, there is still a very large percentage of poorly written, formulaic garbage on network TV we as an audience have to sift through in order to get to the good stuff. (This also would be due to the fact that a good portion of this Golden Age programming happens to not be on the Big Four.) This is where reality TV comes in: for those of us sick and tired of the same police procedurals and sloppy characterization, shows such as Survivor, Big Brother, The Amazing Race, American Idol, America’s Next Top Model and Hell’s Kitchen sort of circumvent that process and give us what we as viewers truly demand: unabashed entertainment. You can gripe all you want about its blight on the television landscape, but it has opened up the industry to nearly twice as many news jobs (consider all the editors and writers needed for each show) and have the ability to be far more interesting and unpredictable (it’s the nature of the best of the shows) than another family drama.

Just like any genre, though, reality TV has its share of groaners. Other than a few random series watched more for the novelty than for the entertainment (Average Joe, For Love Or Money, Joe Millionaire, Mr. Personality), I have avoided nearly all dating shows. Same goes with wife-swapping shows and programs that have “nanny” in the title. These are stinkers. But one that truly gets my goat is NBC’s smash summer hit America’s Got Talent.

Nothing against David Hasselhoff, but this is a pretty awful show that tries to ride the line between Chuck Barris Gong Show ridiculousness and American Idol competition and tends to fail time and time again. It preys on our interest as an audience that we want to see train wrecks happen onstage, but this rubbernecking is something that has led to ineffective nightly news and the muckraking of such pundits as Bill O’Reilly. It’s stupid without being funny, and cruel without being constructive. It’s a freakshow and nothing more.

In the best reality competitions, the contestants have to possess skills in order to move ahead, hence the combined popularity and good critical reception of such programs as Top Chef, Project Runway, Project Greenlight and early seasons of The Apprentice. The participants cannot get by on silly tricks but instead must step forward and pretty much rock the show’s foundation. Not so with America’s Got Talent. In this talent show mess, people from across the country show acts that they believe can earn them $1,000,000. Problem is, no magic show or small animal act is worth even a fraction of that, nor are circus/sideshow tricks designed for birthday parties. These people either expose their delusions, which is pathetic even on megahit American Idol, or simply want their 15 minutes of fame, something the best reality shows refuse to dole out. It’s a formula for obnoxious, unwatchable television.

The bad acts don’t entertain, the good acts belong on other shows, and against the conceit of the show that the program is intended for a variety of great acts, a singer will without question win if left up to the vote of the American people...which it is. I’d love to see a show where contestants bring forth advances in sociological or technological or political advances and allowing the show to fund their dreams and help them reach the people who can really make a difference in the world. It might not work as a show, but I won’t feel like I’ll need a shower after watching it, either. Reality television can one day change the world, and while I am very delighted with most of the good entertainment reality television brings forth, I also support it for what it can do.

More "Big Brother" Than You Can Shake A Stick At

I've made no secret of my love for the CBS reality show "Big Brother." I find it the cream of the crop when it comes to reality shows, what with its soap opera histrionics, its loyal fan base and its deeply involved quest to uncover everything that makes a human being who they are, what makes them tick, and often what makes them go BOOM. By trapping people inside a house with no outside contact in real time for three months (if you last that long without being voted out or ejected) and letting them expose the human condition--there's that term again--in ways matched only by the high-quality programs on HBO, it's pop culture post-modernism at its finest. This isn't even mentioning the dozens of other incarnations around the world, which vary in their games, houses, sexuality and sociological implications. I could probably write a good 5,000 words easily on the topic, but I won't subject you to that torture.

To show my devotion, my mother and I were present at Season 5's live finale due to my second degree association to one of their editors (who is now working on "The Amazing Race") and some last minute film school hooky.

Usually, unless you were paying over $10/month for the 24 hour live feed internet service--which is reportedly very low-resolution and often cuts away when really good things are happening--viewers get the free (and admittedly more-than-enough) one hour three nights a week, edited almost on-the-spot by those aforementioned wonderful editors.

According to Variety, however, it seems that Showtime (partnered with CBS) will air three hours of (mostly) uncensored live feed a night on their Showtime Too (ShoToo) channel midnight to 3 a.m. ET (which sounds much better since I'm on Pacific Time) starting along with the premiere of the show on the fifth of July. The channel comes with most Showtime packages and can easily be found on any TiVo subscriber's list of seven gajillion channels.

There you go. Another thing to add to my TiVo. My fiancee is going to kill me.

What I Did For Nigel Lythgoe: Five Reasons Why "So You Think You Can Dance" is a Better Show than "American Idol"

Tomorrow night marks the premiere of the third season of Fox's runaway summer hit dance show "So You Think You Can Dance," an electric set of 22 episodes that, in a way, pulls you directly into the world that is Media Whore. I've made no secret of my love of musicals, and the show my circle dubs as "Dancey Dance" (or what Stevi calls "So You Think You Wear Pants") fits right into that equation.

I give you five reasons, among many, why "Dancey Dance" is a better show than "American Idol." This is assuming that the show stuck with the voting process of the second season, a vast improvement over the first season. True, in the past I've always mentioned that "American Idol" is a great show in the way that it truly affects our future as a pop culture nation and really rallies for a voting public, and those are ways that makes "AI" better than "Dancey Dance," but for the purposes of this article, it should be noted that each show is better than the other in different ways. I know, I'm crazy.

1. "Dancey Dance," after an audition process similar to "AI"--except Hollywood week becomes Vegas week--the dancers are whittled down into a final 20 to perform and compete at a soundstage at CBS Television City right around the corner from the "AI" stage. These 20 (10 male, 10 female) are then paired together by the judges after weighing their strengths and weaknesses. Catch is, you are stuck with your partner for the first five weeks. This means it is a constant struggle in the show to not only improve week-after-week upon yourself, but to also lift your partner along with you. Sometimes the pairing can be incredibly bizarre, and often times one contestant will have to carry a contestant into the next round with all the vigor they can muster up. This makes for a remarkable challenge, both for the contestant and for the viewer, as a talented individual who, say, doesn't work well with others, can find themselves going home.

Other times, it works out in a magnificent way. Contestants will start to grab bits and pieces of energy from their partners they never had before, making them better contestants. A bond forms. (And sometimes maybe a little romance, as I thought when it came to the pairing of Natalie and Mousa.) A perfect example would be the pairing of Allison, a trained jazz dancer from Utah who has a small appearance in "High School Musical," and Ivan, an Eastern Russian immigrant who was known more as a street dancer and "pop-and-lock'er." Judges gave Ivan a lot of crap early on, as he was struggling with the very difficult material that was way out of his league and seemed to be a leech on Allison's talent. After several weeks later, however, Ivan began to pick up this wonderful contemporary vibe from Allison he sorely lacked, and she finally got some flavor into her vanilla moves. The below YouTube clip signifies their best performance. (Keep in mind, all linked videos save for one were dances that made it to the "Dancey Dance" tour, which I caught in Oakland with my mom and sister.) *choreographed by Tyce Dioro*



2. In the voting process introduced in the second season, the show differed greatly in its first half than the second half of the program's run. During the aforementioned rock-solid couplings, viewers voted for their favorite pairs. The bottom three pairs would then perform solo numbers, apart from each other, on the results show. However, the lowest scores didn't necessarily go home, as the home viewers never found out what that was. Instead, the judges would send home the couple they deemed necessary. That's right, the judges. This means that for every show between the top 20 and the top 10, there would be little chance of someone less talented eking by for weeks, or pretty much what happens every year on "AI." If they suffered, they suffered the consequences.

Better yet, the judges truly weighed that contestant's/couple's entire run of the show, going from auditions to now, so unlike "AI" a bad performance would perhaps not entirely destroy their chances of moving on in the competition. This is a breath of fresh air for those who mourn the loss of many an "AI" contestant who just had a bad week. Only one villain really existed in the second half of "Dancey Dance's" second season, Dmitriy, but he was still a very talented individual.

During the Top 10, the couples disintegrate and are randomly chosen, and the voting process turns to the viewers to eliminate individual dancers (one male, one female) each week, and at that point in the competition everyone should be at around the same level.

3. In "AI," producers and vocal coaches are indeed there to suggest songs to the contestants, but the final decision still belongs to the singer. Not so in "Dancey Dance." The judges themselves are the choreographers (save for Nigel, executive producer of both "Dancey Dance" and "AI," who is still a trained dancer), so they know what the hell they're talking about. While each has a wildly different sense of style--compare Mia Michaels' bizarre but beautiful contemporary repertoire to Mary Murphy's rigid ballroom protocals, or Dan Karaty's safe hip-pop boy band music video moves to Shane Sparks' wild and balls-out freedom that informed his choreography in "You Got Served"--they all respect each other's fields, and know how to discuss such things in detail.

4. Since the judges do the choreography (when they choreograph, they are not allowed to judge that week, but return in later weeks), they are given free reign to push the dancers to the limit. There is no pussyfooting around, and if you can't do the Cuban rumba that Alex da Silva is teaching you, you'd better believe you're going to look like a fool out there on the dance floor. This forces a contestant to not only break out of their comfort zone--true, that happens in "AI" sometimes, but even in country week singers find a way to bring it back to their strengths--but to put up or shut up. There is no lying back while your fans rally around you, because if you don't make that lift look spectacular, you're exposed. This makes for a constant flow of energy and pizzaz every single episode, and it's infectious. Admire what Ms. Michaels does to the top 10 dancers in this clip, having them find their inner spirits, make them trust that they don't look like clowns even with some borderline foolish-looking moves, and get them to connect their story to the audience.



5. I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is nothing more exciting, energetic and erotic than a great dance sequence. They get you pumped and feeling alive. They get you to move to the rhythm of life, which is indeed a powerful beat. And if done right, they get you the girl, figuratively speaking (or literally, depending on your circumstances and skills). "Dancey Dance" understands this, and isn't just a sort of reality television regurgitation for the masses. (Yes, I hate "Dancing with the Stars" with a passion.) It hits you on an emotional level on almost every occasion, something "AI" can only boast with a handful of contestants. Let's look at runner-up Travis' contemporary dance with third-place Heidi, using a song featured in one of the greatest modern movies most people have never seen, "Baghdad Cafe." *choreographed by Mia Michaels*



I've said so much about how great the show is without even mentioning the great first season the show had, or even the winner of season two, the supremely talented Benji. It's so good, I don't even have to. But I leave you with the final and unofficial sixth reason why "Dancey Dance" is better than "AI"--"AI" doesn't have zombies. *choreographed by Wade Robinson*