TV Watch

Katie Britt

Senator Katie Britt (yes, she's a U.S. senator) will have trouble living down her Republican response to the State of the Union. There have been other bad ones (Gov. Jindal, another "look we are diverse"! was up there). 

But, she took things to new heights. Also, you know the whole thing was specially crafted. Like John Kennedy (R-LA) and his Mr. Haney voice, the voice is not quite real. Ditto the actual content. She's so bad that SNL (as it rarely does) truly hit the parody (not that it's too hard with that much material) ala Matt Damon and Brett Kavanaugh. Scarlett Johansson needed the voice. Other than that, the look and script (down to the craziness) was A-1. 

The somewhat sexy baby voice and cross (a "crucifix" is a cross with Jesus on it) prominently shown with your top open just enough to be sorta sexy but not slutty while in a kitchen (she's a wife and mother, you know) is all there. Then, you have to go to the message, including the threat to our way of life, facts be damned. And, are we better than we were four years ago? You mean in 2020, when COVID broke out? Sorta? 

I saw various accounts that the whole thing didn't go over well with various Republicans. "WTF." Still, again, since the whole thing was not real, you get the idea that there was an audience for that sort of thing. They were aiming for a certain base for which that sort of thing appeals. Not that I'm one to say, but I figure you can do that somehow without everyone else saying "WTF!"  Then again, Donald Trump. He's still a thing. 

How does Katie Britt feel now? Does she feel embarrassed? Many Republicans should be these days. Still, few became national embarrassments on quite this level. BTW, Senator Joe Biden when he was about her age also did a response (to President Reagan). He was less creepy. 

[I added more background on Britt here. 

And, I'm still tired of the LGM blog sarcastically talking about "but Biden is old." How does this not just promote that meme? Keep it out there and those who wish will use it badly. Helping them. "Darn he's old" is not what I think every time I think about Biden.]

Love on Fire 

There are so many examples of certain types of television programming. You can watch hours of television court and police dramas, all sort of ridiculous on some level. There are also lots of Hallmark (three channels) and Up TV films. Now, we have another channel, Great American Family.

I have to catch a film that I'm in the right mood for. Many Hallmark films don't do it for me. The cozy mysteries generally are not my cup of tea. The same often applies to Up TV. GMAC overall comes off as watered down, overly glossy Hallmark. Now, they even spend chunks of time replaying Columbo. 

Up TV seems to me to be going for a less polished and upscale look than Hallmark. You can see them aiming for the "Middle America" or something demographic. They are sometimes more religious (repeatedly with Amish content). Also, they often are more diverse. They are more likely to have non-white leads. Hallmark is trying more these days, including having more than one film with a blind lead.

Not that I think UP does a great job focusing on the differences there. They look different but how different are their backgrounds and experiences? Love on Fire has an interracial romance. I guess we are at that part in our development that no one actually considers that notable.

How is this for a mix? The (white) woman is a widow (her husband died). The guy (black) is a widower (his wife died in childbirth). The fire chief is non-white. There is a single (non-white) tough chick with a heart firefighter. I am not quite sure where this is supposed to be taking place though the guy referenced he originally lived in New York. 

Another (white) is married with a daughter with cerebral palsy. Oh, the widow's sister-in-law has cerebral palsy too, since she apparently needs some sort of connection to deeply understand the need for a children's playground that is suitable to all children. Would no playground (a reference is made to multiple playgrounds in the area) these days be special needs-friendly? We barely see the daughter with cerebral palsy (at least in this cut of the film). 

The film as a whole was one of those pleasant enough, rough around the edges, Up TV films that were enjoyable enough. You can find various things wrong with the whole thing. The expensive houses. The silly (tacked-on) late in the film conflict actually had nothing to do with the guy (but we do unfairly take out things on people, so it isn't really totally fake).  Some questionable acting. And, firefighters are not supposed to have beards!

I still found the whole thing easy enough to take. I DVR-ed it so could fast forward much of the scenes where she is talking to the park director. That all seems like filler to me. And, is it really fair for the fire chief to be the sole judge in a final barbecue contest? 

==

Did you "jump forward"?