![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
Search more TV REVIEWS
![]() 2009 American Idol Reviewby Mitchell Bard "American Idol" Returns With a New Judge in Tow I am not a fan of "American Idol" (Fox, Tuesdays and Wednesdays at 8 p.m. Eastern), but it's not for the reason you might think. I am not against all reality programs. I am fine with highly rated, fairly harmless entries. There is nothing wrong with a network programming a reality series that is a proven hit, especially when it is innovative and shakes up the schedule a bit. The only real reason I haven't been a fan of "American Idol" is because I don't like teeny-bopper pop music, which is the bread and butter of the show. "Idol" hit the air when boy bands and empty-headed young singers like Britney and Jessica ruled the music business, a time I like to refer to as The Year the Music Died. And not much has changed. The introductory montage of this season's premiere included a room of tween girls breathlessly awaiting the verdict as to who would be last year's winner, and then sobbing in anguish because light rocker David Cook bested hearthrob David Archuleta. That, to me, summed up the appeal of "American Idol," and that is something I want no part of. After all, when the networks have featured rock-themed talent contests, I've been on board (like both seasons of "Rock Star," first finding a new singer for INXS, and then casting a front-person for a made-for-the-show band consisting of Tommy Lee, Gilby Clarke and Jason Newsted). But because I never cared about the Clay Aikens and Kelly Clarksons of the world, I mostly steered clear of "Idol." What caused me to take a look at this season's first two two-hour episodes? No, not the singer who auditioned in a bikini (although she was exceptionally easy on the eyes). It was the addition of a new judge, songwriter-producer Kara DioGuardi. "Idol" has been a top-five show for the past seven seasons, so to make a major change to the winning formula is big news (DioGuardi joins the regular panel of Simon Cowell, Paula Abdul and Randy Jackson). Since "Idol" lost a chunk of viewers last season, and this season's premiere rated even lower than last year's, it is understandable that the producers would want to take some risks to reinvigorate the program.
More importantly, DioGuardi lends a second passionate voice to the panel. Cowell's bad-guy shtick may have grown tired and cliche, but at least he offers a strong opinion (usually some variation on "that was dreadful" or a begrudging admission of quality with a half-smile yes vote). Abdul is the same to every contestant, nice and nurturing, whether she votes yes or no. It's a quality that might make for a good person, but not for interesting television. And Jackson is just plain odd. It's like he is so ingrained in doing the show that he feels like his reactions don't have to actually relate to anything going on in front of him anymore. When he is outvoted, he doesn't seem to care. All of his comments seem to have "just as long as the check clears" as their subtext.
"Idol" pioneered a structure that is now familiar, but is a bit odd: It's really two shows. First, for some weeks, there are auditions. And then, the "new" show begins, when the finalists convene in Los Angeles for the competition. There is an aspect of the early audition episodes that really rubs me the wrong way: the exploitation of rejected singers. I have no problem with "Idol" getting comic mileage out of the William Hung-like auditioners, those people who should know that they're horrendous but try out anyway. These contestants aren't showing any respect for the art and craft of singing and performing, so they deserve no respect in return. And there were no shortage of whack-jobs totally asking for humiliation in this year's auditions (my favorite was the nerdy version of Jake Gyllenhaal -- yes, you read that right -- who couldn't have carried a tune if the judges placed it in a backpack for him). But where "Idol" drifts into sadistic territory is when the producers present for mocking auditioners who are not good enough, but who take the whole process seriously and are destroyed by their rejection. One moment that stuck out for me was a 19-year-old pretty blonde woman who was probably the most talented performer in her small town, but was clearly not up to the task of being a professional singer. Unlike the Hung-variety idiots, you can completely understand why this woman would think she was good enough to make it onto "Idol." She was shocked and devastated by the outright rejection of the judges, and the way it was handled by the show was far too exploitative for my tastes. But aside from this low-rent tactic and the unwatchability of Seacrest, I completely see why people like "Idol." It offers an interesting and potent mix, combining the drama of the personal stories (one contestant breaks down crying after making it to the next round, explaining to Seacrest that the show is a chance for him to help his struggling family) and music (if you like the pop genre). There is plenty going on to keep your attention. And the addition of DioGuardi brings a positive new element to the veteran program. I can't say I'll watch "Idol" as the season progresses, but once the auditions are done, I might take a look at an episode, maybe a theme night when the featured artist is someone I like. Even with its small but significant loss of audience, the "Idol" juggernaut will go on, with or without me. Which is fine. I'll take "Idol" over "Superstars of Dance," any day of the week. CLICK HERE and read more MITCHELL BARD TV REVIEWSCLICK HERE and read reviews of every film from 2008 CLICK HERE and WATCH Movie Trailers from the 2009 films CLICK HERE and see what's OUT ON DVD right now! CLICK HERE and WATCH the BEST OF SHORT FILMS CLICK HERE and read MOVIE REVIEWS of all the TOP Films at the box office today!
![]()
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||