The non-Jewish schlub

I have found my non-Jewish equivalent!

I give you Louis CK, whose show Louie just had its second season premier on FX this last week.

I would invite all my fellow schlubs to check out this fat, balding, middle aged genius. (If you don't have cable, there are a handful of episodes from season one on the Louie web site.)

It's not just that Louis CK is funny. Anybody who watched any of his standup more or less knew that. But this show has nearly as much intelligence as it does comedy. It's very much in the Seinfeld/Curb-Your-Enthusiasm vein; Louis CK is a standup comedian and single dad in the city.

Just as CYE was a shade darker than Seinfeld, Louie is a shade darker than CYE. It might also not be quite as funny. I haven't seen anything on Louie that made me laugh as much as one of Larry David's great meltdowns. But if it isn't quite as funny, it's way more dramatic. And more artfully done.

The New Yorker's Nancy Franklin wrote an extremely an extremely smart tribute to the show two weeks ago, that I probably couldn't improve upon. (Subscription only.) And I got a sneak preview of some of the second season. It's true, not every episode is brilliant (I didn't love the Joan Rivers episode), but for every miss, there's a homerun. (The one where Louie is invited into a "friends with benefits" situation is genius.)

Long and short: Watch this show.

Aught not

A couple of magazines have started their 2000s decade assessments -- notably New York magazine.

 

I'm not going to run through the decade politically. Too fraught. Too many open sores. Too tragic. What started as a decade in which America never seemed wealthier, more prosperous and more stable ended with ruin, war and misery. I never thought I'd watch New York burn, as it did on September 11, 2001. I had always been taught that although there would be economic downturns, there were enough economic safety nets in place to prevent a second Great Depression. I thought that hysterical, violent antisemitism was not something I'd ever witness on a large scale.

 

No, not a good decade. (Although we got at least one year of Barack Obama. I'm happy about that.)

Culturally, I'm not sure the decade was all that great either. In terms of fiction, only Nathan Englander's Ministry of Special Cases, Michael Chabon's Adventures of Kavalier and Clay and Jonathan Franzen's The Corrections were particularly memorable. (Although, I admit to being behind on most of my current fiction.)

 

Movies also left something to be desired. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was probably the most unique and interesting movie of the decade. And while I'd like to give it another year or two to see if it holds up, The Hurt Locker might well be the best movie of the decade -- it was certainly the best of 2009. Possibly the greatest holocaust movie ever made came out: The Pianist (and props to Inglorious Basterds). There were a few excellent foreign movies like Talk to Her, The Lives of Others and especially 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 days -- which I think is the only other serious contender for best movie of the decade next to The Hurt Locker and Eternal Sunshine.

Comedy fared a little better with Sideways, Borat, The 40-Year Old Virgin, Harold and Kumar go to White Castle and, of course, Knocked Up. But movies were, on the whole, way better in the 1990s. (Let me put it this way: Pulp Fiction, Fight Club, Goodfellas, Mighty Aphrodite and Shakespeare In Love could blow any of those movies out of the water. And those are just the ones I'm thinking of off the top of my head.)

 

The two things that flourished during the aughts were television and (ironically) journalism.

 

Journalism (ironic because the field is dying even as it flourishes, and ironic because it was also possibly the most shameful moment in journalism history) saw some truly amazing feats. I'm not sure whether The Times' September 11th coverage will ever be duplicated again. Whether you love or hate Howell Raines it was a moment of genius for that paper. (BTW: one of the best books of the decade was Seth Mnookin's Hard News, which was about the fall of Raines at the Times.) Barton Gellman's book Angler was one of the best political biographies I've ever read. While I was never so enamored with Bob Woodward as a writer, State of Denial and The War Within were essential reading, as were Ron Suskind's books The Price of Loyalty and The One Percent Doctrine. And, of course, Iraq and Afghanistan spawned some of the very best writing of the decade from Dexter Filkins' The Forever War to George Packer's The Assassin's Gate to Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower. There were a lot of others.

Will there ever again be such a moment for journalism? I tend to doubt it. While there will certainly be turbulent, fascinating historical epochs coming up, I'm not sure newspapers will be there to cover them. (I say this with no joy whatsoever. But will a paper like the Times, which can put a bureau in Iraq and a bureau in Afghanistan and a bureau in Italy, still be around and functioning in the same way in 2020? My guess is probably not.)

One should also not forget that it was a shameful moment for journalism. We accepted so many lies without challenge. From the evidence of WMDs in Iraq, to the predictable disintegration of the housing market and the economy, too many journalists accepted the official line and moved on. We have plenty to answer for.

But while 2000-2009 might be something of a last hurrah for journalism, I think television might have reached its peak as never before.

There have been "golden ages" of television before -- like in the 1950s, with shows like The Honeymooners or I Love Lucy. But, unfortunately, a lot of those shows don't hold up so well in 2009. (The two exceptions might be Sid Caesar's Your Show of Shows -- which had, among others, Woody Allen and Mel Brooks on the writing staff -- and Sgt. Bilko.)

The Honeymooners and I Love Lucy might be victims of their own success -- they might seem formulaic now because they were duplicated so often. (Although I have my doubts about that -- they were doing a lot of very vaudevillian, shticky material that I'm sure was formulaic then, too.) But, today, television seems a lot sharper and more relevant.

Comedy Central really had a hold on the aughts for laughs. South Park sometimes feels so smart, so interesting, so evil, so withering and uncompromising that it rises to the level of literature. A close runner up is Jon Stewart, whose take on the news (and this might be old hat to say) is many degrees sharper than, say, Wolf Blitzer's.

I'm sort of amazed that Stewart managed to take a concept that had been around since Chevy Chase did the Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live and make it fresh and insightful. Likewise, The Colbert Report spin-off, evolved from a one-joke premise into something likewise interesting. (No, not as good as The Daily Show, but still worth watching.) And, of course, there's the late, lamented Chappelle Show.

Reality TV might be the nadir of our culture, but I also sometimes think its some of the most fascinating sociological window into our troubled country that's ever been dreamed up. No, I don't feel good about admitting this, but I sort of love Reality TV. The aughts had plenty of it.

But the biggest innovator of the decade had to be HBO. True, The Sopranos started in 1999, but it crested in the aughts. Likewise, Curb Your Enthusiasm had certain episodes that were every bit as dark as South Park. Some of the things they did I wasn't crazy about, like Entourage (which is still better than 90% of the stuff on network TV), others unfortunately didn't stick around long enough like Da Ali G Show. I've never really watched Six Feet Under, but those who do tell me it's brilliant. But they did great comedy specials like Dave Chappelle's Killin' Them Softly. And while Bill Maher is incredibly uneven, Real Time had some amazing episodes and bits. The best of the best, however, was The Wire, which might be the greatest television series ever made.

Well, aughts. There you have it. It's been an experience. Not going to say nothing good happened -- but please don't call me again.

Glenn Beck = Eric Cartman?

This week South Park set their scopes on Glenn Beck with their Dances With Smurfs episode.

I hate to admit it, but I was slightly disappointed.

It was sort of a good idea to have Eric Cartman become a radio personality (which is, when you think about it, something he would be very well suited for later in life).

But the whole smurf theme seemed pretty strained -- and not very funny. Plus, the impression didn't seem quite as jarringly accurate as Jon Stewart's Beck impression last week.

And, truthfully, having Cartman attack student government didn't feel nearly grand enough for him. The Eric Cartman I know has plans that are much bigger than South Park Elementary. Why wasn't he launching some sort of all out attack on the Jews? Or blacks? Or one of his other favorite targets?

But the truth is, while Cartman might be eerily similar to Rush Limbaugh, I don't think the same holds true with Glenn Beck.

For one thing, Cartman is a lot smarter than Beck.

Glenn Beck is a deeply stupid individual. He has no sense of history. He doesn't know what terms like communism and socialism really mean. He fully embraces what Richard Hofstadter called the "paranoid style of American politics." And, apparently, he doesn't know how to spell.

While Cartman has no interest in educating himself, he's not a stupid person at all. In fact, he's wildly creative.

For another, Cartman is a lot more sincere than Glenn Beck.

I'm not sure what Beck really believes. I suspect his panic and weeping is largely for the cameras. He's got an extremely profitable television persona -- why not go with it? When he gave an interview to (I think) Katie Couric a couple of weeks ago he said that he thought Obama would have been a better choice for president than John McCain. Does he really believe that? Who knows.

But one thing about Cartman is: he's perfectly sincere. He deeply believes in his antisemitism. He seethes with hatred against blacks. He loves to taunt Mexicans.

And there's something sort of admirable about how fully he embraces these things. Say what you will about the disgusting nature of Cartman's beliefs -- they're real. It's one of the reasons he's the strongest character on South Park. And he follows through with the warped logic of these ideas: Mel Gibson hates Jews, therefore Jews are loathsome, therefore I must exterminate the Jews. And Cartman goes all out to enact these plans -- usually in far more creative and amusing ways than one would think.

In short, Parker and Stone shouldn't have to degrade Cartman by comparing him to the far lesser Glenn Beck.

Can non-Jews play Jews?

Joanna Smith Rakoff makes the case in Jewcy that Weeds is the most Jewish show on television.

I, too, admired the understated way in which Weeds made its Jewyness known. (This is despite the fact that the show itself was only good for about a season. (Season 2).) And I liked the overstated way they made the character of Andy (Justin Kirk) become a Rabbi in order to avoid army service. (Long story.)

The only thing that bothered me --

Justin Kirk is so not Jewish.

Not that he wasn't great. The first season was utterly limp until he showed up. But I will never, ever, ever believe that Justin Kirk is in training to be a Rabbi.

Which actually isn't all that unusual. A lot of great actors have failed the Jew test. There's no way I could believe Robert DeNiro was a nebbishy Jewish comedian in The King of Comedy. And even though I liked Defiance (and had mixed feelings about Munich) who decided that Daniel Craig was Jewish looking? (But at least he was more believable than Richard Gere who played the Rabbi in Bee Season. Oy.)

One of the reasons that Woody Allen movies in which he doesn't appear as an actor tend to be so crappy is because he picks such obviously non-Jewish actors (John Cusack, Kenneth Brannaugh) to play Woody Allen roles. Such an unfortunate decision.

In fact, it's sort of tough to think of a movie or play in which a non-Jewish actor has done a really good Jewish performance. It's true Maureen Stapleton (the quintessential Irish woman) gave a wonderful performance as Emma Goldman in Reds. And I was alone in thinking that Alfred Molina was not bad as Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof. But otherwise, I'm sort of at a loss.

Five reasons why this season of Top Chef is going to rock

Reasons 1 through 4 are these:

The contestants.

Last night was episode two of Top Chef Las Vegas. And it's become blindingly obvious that this crop of cheftestants are vastly superior to last season's.

And it makes for much more enjoyable viewing.

Part of the reason that you watch a show like TC is to watch all the catfighting reality TV elements.... and the other part is to watch food porn. Nothing last season was all that exciting. This season, however, the food looks awesome. Thank you, cheftestants.

As for the cheftestants...

1) Jennifer Carroll.

I think she's probably the odds on favorite to win this. So far, she hasn't had any missteps. But more than that, she runs Eric Ripert's Philadelphia restaurant. You don't get to that place unless you're exceedingly talented. She looks like she is. Moreover, she's hot. While this, in and of itself, is not a qualifier, I think the judges are going to go a little easier on her at judge's table. (And she would be the first hot chef to win TC!)

2) Kevin Gillespie.

Because I'm a snob, I was immediately intrigued to learn that Kevin turned down a scholarship at MIT to become a chef. The fact that he's tattooed and bearded makes him all the more badass in my eyes. He's one won elimination challenge and was one of the runner-ups in the quickfire. I put him at number two to win this.

3) The Voltaggio brothers.

It was a nice touch, putting two brothers together. The producers tried this two years ago by putting a lesbian couple on the show. It didn't quite work (perhaps because they were rooting for eachother a bit much). But these brothers seem to have a nice (but friendly) rivalry going. And the odd thing is that they seem to be eachother's equal (at least at this point) in terms of cooking. And, yes, they look exceptionally talented! Michael won the quickfire, Bryan won the elimination challenge. (Which Michael was runner up on.) Either of them seem to be Jennifer or Kevin's equal.

4) Ashley Merriman.

I don't think she's in the running for this... there are at least two others that I think look like they have a better shot than she does. But she's got edge. She has some talent. And (even though she ain't interested in my type) she's sexy as hell. I think she's going to make this season interesting -- even if it's in an eye-rolling-what-a-schmuck-sort-of-way. (I mean, because gay marriage doesn't exist, that means marriage isn't a happy occasion? What was that about?)

5) Padma.

Is it me, or is she getting hotter?

The return of Top Chef

He's back, baby.

Top Chef might have taken a major hit by being so crappy last season. The enthusiasm has definitely died down amongst my friends, and maybe from the public at large. I went to Halfsteak on Wednesday and none of the TC geeks were there to watch. (I chronicled this little pilgrimage for The Jew and the Carrot. Saddest detail: the bartender didn't even want to switch the channel to Top Chef.)

But this season opener was actually pretty good.

Unlike in past seasons, the chefs featured on the show are actually fairly accomplished. A couple of them are James Beard winners (or runners up) and one of them has a Michelin star. (Most of the names are unfamiliar to me, because only one cheftestant is from New York, but reading their bios has been enlightening. They certainly seem like a different crop than seasons past.)

Moreover, Vegas was an excellent choice. The restaurant scene there has really come into its own (even if several of those big eateries will go out of business thanks to the recession!) as my editor pointed out in a story in last week's Post.

Unlike last season's noticeably chintzy lack of prizes for elimination wins, the TC producers have already decided to ratchet things up a notch -- they were throwing out $15,000 poker chips to the winner of the quickfire -- yes, the quickfire! (Although, oddly, the winner of the elimination challenge got squat. I guess that will come later.)

And, finally, at least two of the cheftestants are unassailably hot. (And one of these hotties looks like she can really cook.)

Nice work, Tom and Padma. You've lured me back for at least another season.