Those of you who watch the show "Law and Order: SVU" know it is a show that can get pretty dark at times. It deals with serious, sensitive, and timely subject matter about the most "heinous" crimes perpetrated by the most twisted criminals out there.
However, the show wasn't totally devoid of humor, as Richard Belzer provided some comic relief, and even Ice-T and some of the other characters would let loose with some funny lines to break the tension and overall somber mood of the show.
The show premiered in 1999. Enter, in 2009, the character of "Stuckey", his very name denoting a highly inappropriate cartoonish buffoonery entirely out of place on SVU. Why a respected drama like SVU, which has won many awards, and whose lessons are taught in schools, would introduce an INTENTIONALLY ANNOYING character like Stuckey, is perplexing in the extreme.
For decades, the sitcom has introduced the "Intentionally Annoying" character for some cheap yuks. Notables include "Mama" from Mama's Family, "Schneider" from One Day at a Time, "Newman" from Seinfeld, and, perhaps most notably, "Urkel" from Family Matters. The idea being, when this character shows up, the other characters roll their eyes, shake their fist in the air, and comically rue the day they ever crossed paths with such an irritating personality. Comedy, of course, ensues.
Why this strategy has been employed for a dramatic show such as SVU is bizarre, puzzling, and perhaps desperate. There is no need for this. Stuckey even has his own catch phrase, like Urkel's classic "Did I do that?" I won't degrade this fine blog by repeating it here. But let me just say, it's superfluousness befits its source character.
Stuckey, a techie, has the intended effect on his co-workers. They find him annoying. So does the audience. So what's the point? Yet, true to form for a SITCOM, when someone yells at Stuckey, you kind of feel bad for him, and you, by Pavlovian instinct, think you are going to hear a heartfelt "Awwwww" on the soundtrack from the live studio audience.
Also, the SVU writers are employing yet another hackneyed sitcom trick that is beneath their normally excellent abilities. The concept of "addakid", which, when the kids on a sitcom grow up and aren't cute anymore, they simply add a kid. This has been done on almost every show with kids, but famously with the Cosby Show, Growing Pains, Family Matters (of course)...but why is SVU taking its lead from Family Matters? Why are they adding Stuckey? Why I ask you! What's going on here? Who has gotten to them?
The first time Stuckey reared his pasty head earlier this season, I didn't think much about it. Then he came back. Then he came back AGAIN. Are people out there really, truly clamoring for MORE Stuckey? I find this hard to believe. I know the public loves mediocrity, but why drag down a fine show like SVU with his chicanery, and, dare I say, tomfoolery? Making Stuckey the sole source of "comic relief", and downgrading Belzer and Ice-T is a giant mistake.
Just wait and see, one day it's not going to be "Benson and Stabler", it's going to be "Benson and Stuckey". We all lived through "Urkelmania", what with the cereal, talking doll, board game, etc. Why do it again? We all survived Martin Short as "Ed Grimley", why, oh why must we not learn the lessons of history?
The one saving grace here might be that the writers are throwing us for a loop. They are intentionally getting us to notice the inanity and unnecessary presence of Stuckey, getting us to dislike him, and then he gets killed off or severely injured, and then we all feel silly. If this happens, I will wipe the slate clean and applaud the writers on a job well done. They manipulated us properly, and I have no problem at all with that. But is it really worth the price? Is it really worth all the Stuckey? Only time will tell. But, barring that from happening, Stuckey has proved to be a head-scratching addition to the SVU cast.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
I support Carrie Prejean
We all know the story in the news right now that Miss California, Carrie Prejean, said she supports marriage between a man and a woman. The problem is the fact that it is a news story at all.
You mean she actually supports a MAN and a WOMAN getting....(gasp)...MARRIED?!!!???!! How shocking! How horrifying! STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!!
I suppose 2009 marked the year that going along with a tradition that has existed for thousands of years, and actually predates beauty pageants, as far as we know, makes you worthy of vicious scorn and ridicule. A tradition that exists because a man and a woman are the tools needed technically to make a family, which, in its ideal form, is a societal pillar where norms are established. But Noooooooo..... Now this view is considered "politically incorrect". Which just goes to show AGAIN how counterintuitive liberalism and political correctness actually is. Liberals look for any excuse at all to raise their mock bile and their faux-outrage. Now they have such a hair-trigger, just saying you support men and women getting married unleashes the hissyfits.
Never mind that our liberal messiah, Obama has the same exact view.(Although why do I get the idea he would support gay marriage wholeheartedly if research hadn't shown the majority of people in the U.S. support traditional marriage, including the majority of Californians, who Carrie is supposed to represent...but then again I think the Koran says gays should be beheaded or something, so maybe he IS following his beliefs) He didn't get hard questions like this when he ran for Prez. Beauty pageant contestants get more hardball questions than our own president. But that's another matter for another day. No one excoriated our Overlord like they did to Carrie Prejean. What is it about attractive, traditional women that liberals see as such a threat? First they opened fire (despite the fact that they want to ban guns) on Sarah Palin, now this. My theory is they don't actually KNOW any conservative women, so when they see one it's like they don't know how to react. It's like a form of kneejerk xenophobia. "What? A...CONSERVATIVE...WOMAN??? Can't be! Aren't they all like US?" The fact that liberals assume all women think alike, and that they are all the same, and that they all are either A. liberal like them or B. Worthy of scorn, shows their...wait for it...SEXISM! That's right, being called a racist, sexist or homophobe isn't the exclusive province of the left! So where are the women's groups? Where are the feminists? Oh that's right...according to them, if you're not a LIBERAL woman, you're not worthy of their support. They should rename their groups LIBERAL women groups, because that's what they are.
Imagine supporting something so radical, so extreme, so hate-filled as...marriage between a man and a woman. I mean it's not like she was hanging around with terrorists, getting crooked land deals and sitting in the church of a true anti-white, anti-American, Antisemitic hatemonger for 20 years...right? What has happened to our society?
You mean she actually supports a MAN and a WOMAN getting....(gasp)...MARRIED?!!!???!! How shocking! How horrifying! STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!!
I suppose 2009 marked the year that going along with a tradition that has existed for thousands of years, and actually predates beauty pageants, as far as we know, makes you worthy of vicious scorn and ridicule. A tradition that exists because a man and a woman are the tools needed technically to make a family, which, in its ideal form, is a societal pillar where norms are established. But Noooooooo..... Now this view is considered "politically incorrect". Which just goes to show AGAIN how counterintuitive liberalism and political correctness actually is. Liberals look for any excuse at all to raise their mock bile and their faux-outrage. Now they have such a hair-trigger, just saying you support men and women getting married unleashes the hissyfits.
Never mind that our liberal messiah, Obama has the same exact view.(Although why do I get the idea he would support gay marriage wholeheartedly if research hadn't shown the majority of people in the U.S. support traditional marriage, including the majority of Californians, who Carrie is supposed to represent...but then again I think the Koran says gays should be beheaded or something, so maybe he IS following his beliefs) He didn't get hard questions like this when he ran for Prez. Beauty pageant contestants get more hardball questions than our own president. But that's another matter for another day. No one excoriated our Overlord like they did to Carrie Prejean. What is it about attractive, traditional women that liberals see as such a threat? First they opened fire (despite the fact that they want to ban guns) on Sarah Palin, now this. My theory is they don't actually KNOW any conservative women, so when they see one it's like they don't know how to react. It's like a form of kneejerk xenophobia. "What? A...CONSERVATIVE...WOMAN??? Can't be! Aren't they all like US?" The fact that liberals assume all women think alike, and that they are all the same, and that they all are either A. liberal like them or B. Worthy of scorn, shows their...wait for it...SEXISM! That's right, being called a racist, sexist or homophobe isn't the exclusive province of the left! So where are the women's groups? Where are the feminists? Oh that's right...according to them, if you're not a LIBERAL woman, you're not worthy of their support. They should rename their groups LIBERAL women groups, because that's what they are.
Imagine supporting something so radical, so extreme, so hate-filled as...marriage between a man and a woman. I mean it's not like she was hanging around with terrorists, getting crooked land deals and sitting in the church of a true anti-white, anti-American, Antisemitic hatemonger for 20 years...right? What has happened to our society?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)