Milkshakes and Murder: The CW's "Riverdale"

The first season of Riverdale hit Netflix last month, and after I finished it, I pretty much thought, "Huh. I think I hated that."

That's hard for me to say, because I really wanted to like it. But I've seen a lot of shows on The CW and getting through season one was a chore.

What kept me going, you ask? EASY. THERE WAS ONLY ONE THING:

Watching Riverdale is like" blah blah blah murder blah blah blah secrets blah blah bored now WAIT JUGHEAD AND BETTY"

These two. The dream team that is Betty Cooper (Lili Reinhart) and Jughead Jones (Cole Sprouse). It was the single lifeline in a sea of mind-numbing frivolity.

But when a show brings something real to the screen, people notice. And, despite The CW's genuine attempt to make Archie Andrews the resident heartthrob, there's a reason why the internet is overflowing with gifs of Cole Sprouse as Jughead Jones instead.

And thank God you are

The ads for the show initially looked like this was going to be a lot darker of a show than it turned out to be, which was a disappointment for me. For one thing, I thought Archie Andrews was totally going to be a horrible person.

I was really into the "murder and milkshakes" kind of vibe here

Like look at this guy. The one on the right side of the booth. Total jerk, right?

If only.

That would have at least been more interesting. Maybe it was the sneering expression, but I thought I was being promised a heartless, manipulative guy you love to hate. Instead, we have a varsity-jacket-wearing jock in a tired Troy Bolton-type scenario: a star football player really wants to be a singer. Plus some inappropriate student-teacher relationships. But that ended up being a dead end, too. I just didn't care about this. Did anyone?

BUT I did care whenever Jughead was on screen. Cole Sprouse was Riverdale's biggest strength. Aside from banking on our The Suite Life of Zack and Cody nostalgia, of which there is plenty, he also offers the show a character that is full of fragility, masculinity, tortured youth, lone-wolfing, and even a wool cap. The outcast in love with the sweet girl-next-door (to his best friend).

scene stealing 101 by Cole Sprouse

He's the character that is teetering on the edge of ruin, because everyone else's families are totally petty, broken, and corrupt. Somehow, the guy from the wrong side of the tracks and his dad end up being the least seedy ones in this whole scenario.

Thank God Jughead was there or I definitely wouldn't have made it through this first season.

As for Archie, who's apparently the main character of the show.... I don't know, I was just bored by the rest of this. I'm exactly the audience for this kind of show, too, so the fact that I'm frustrated by it (and not in a positive way) is troubling. I wanted to like this show and I think the network wanted me to like it, but it was confusing, just managed to hang onto the viewer by the skin of its teeth.

When it did catch my interest, it was because of Jughead and Betty, but I also have to give the character of Cheryl Blossom credit. As much as my friends and I knew she was supposed to be the villain, we all felt that, hey, at least she was consistent.

Cheryl Blossom in summary

That made her a stronger character than so many other people in the rest of the show.

So, in summary, I watched this show because:

a) BETTY + JUGHEAD

look at these two. This is the heart of the show.

and, less pressingly,

b) old cars

c) retro aesthetic

d) sworn loyalty to The CW

e) they have a cute old diner (see below)

I will watch almost anything with a cute old diner

f) pretty lights

g) Cheryl was consistent

h) Twin Peaks vibes

We'll see what happens next season. I'll watch for Jughead and Betty. Meanwhile, I'll keep an eye out for anything else interesting that fights its way to the surface here. There's so much potential! I hope they really live up to it next season.

Nobody Puts Baby on TV

I'd like to open with this statement: Patrick Swayze forever.

Yes, the original Dirty Dancing was a low-budget sleeper hit that nobody expected to succeed. But, like, that's the charm of it. That's why it works. It pretty much obtained cult status by charismatic leads, a killer soundtrack and great (dirty) dancing.

Selfishly, I feel I've really benefitted from the live TV musicals fad because I adore a midweek, TV-budget train wreck. It's a great way to exercise my cynicism and have a fit of gut-wrenching laughter now and again, but networks can't seriously be expecting positive things from these musical distress calls, can they?

My film repertoire does, of course, include a love for the original 1987 Dirty Dancing and, therefore, Mr. Patrick Swayze. And if you think I'm too proud to proclaim my love for the sequel/prequel disaster, Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights (2004), then you're mistaken (haven't you ever wondered why I know all the words to a Shakira song?).

We all went into the 2017 Dirty Dancing remake disgusted by the mere idea that it was even attempted, so this version was never going to be anything but a disappointing rehash, aligned in the recent constellation of shoddy network musical embarrassments, but still... even armed with those incredibly low expectations, this was bad.

The first issue here is the bizarre casting. This is just your classic example of no chemistry between leads (think Ralph Fiennes and JLo in Maid in Manhattan). In fact, Abigail Breslin's Baby Houseman and Cole Prattes as Johnny Castle are just one big no.

They were also scrambling to differentiate themselves from the original just enough to justify the unjustifiable decision to remake this, so you end up with stories no one cares about. Case in point: no one cares about Baby's parents and the less we know about their sex lives (SERIOUSLY), the better! (Just. Why).

It also felt like an elementary mistake to show us any scenes of Johnny in other women's rooms. Like... that's the part we're trying to ignore, remember? The original avoids those scenes like Baby avoids the lift.

But does it even matter? Nobody wants Colt Prattes' Johnny and Abigail Breslin's Baby together anyways. 'Cause there's like an, I don't know, thirty year age difference between these two people who don't have any chemistry anyway? Why is Johnny like 43 and Baby like 18??

Other complaints include the fact that Penny blurted out that she was pregnant to Baby, the weird Penny and Baby "Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On" sequence, and the fact that my hopes that they would spare the iconic Sylvia and Mickey sequence were dashed (is this also a good time to bring up that upsetting version of Hungry Eyes? Actually, all the covers? All the covers.)

Weirdest by far, though, was the totally uninteresting b-story about the difficulties in Mr. and Mrs. Houseman's marriage. I kept trying to figure out what on earth could have possessed the development execs to think that we would ever be interested in such a thing (given that it wasn't in the original at all). Is this a no brainer or not?? We don't want to see Baby's parents having sex.

The only reason I can see this approach making sense is if the network made a bunch of assumptions about their audience. It seems ABC assumed that if you knew anything about Dirty Dancing, then you were probably alive when the original came out in 1987. Which means you're probably married with kids? Which means you would probably then relate to a troubled marriage B-plot over the young love story (which is the essence of the film?)???

But why make that assumption about your viewers?

In summary, what's an unnecessary plot within an unnecessary film? The whole thing just screams for you to stop wasting your time and go watch the cult classic that it's trying so hard to be and not to be.

Because when you get down to it, here's my point: hasn't this always spoken for itself?:

Let's all just pray that none of the original cast or crew was watching ABC tonight. Whatever the case, one thing remains clear: Dirty Dancing will not be put in the corner.

In Which I Am Struck By "Lightning"

For the past couple of months, a little show called "The Lightning Thief: The Percy Jackson Musical" has been camped out at the Lucille Lortel Theatre.

And there are a few things you should know.

First of all, I think we were all worried about this show. This show adapts the YA Percy Jackson books which have a history of coming from a fandom that's way protective of their story world and who generally feel wronged by previous adaptations.

What I'm really saying here is that we've all read the books (what do you mean 'too old for them'??) and seen the movies (which people generally find embarrassing and/or disappointing, but which - you guessed it - I personally love anyhow), so you know that the series is about a boy who finds out the Greek gods are real and that he's the son of Poseidon. And stuff.

So you've got books that people are super protective of and movies which people generally find disappointing, and then you throw the word "musical" into the mix and that's when people start to get serious.

A Percy Jackson musical? I was skeptical. We were all skeptical.

But I was also way too curious to let this opportunity pass without seeing what on earth they'd done to this story this time. I saw the show (for the first time) in late March.

Can I tell you something? Like, can I confide this to you from my heart? I couldn't be more delighted to report what I'm about to proclaim and, I assure you, I'm not taking it lightly.

Here's my proclamation: The Lightning Thief is, without a doubt, the most fun show I've ever seen. In my life.

like good, proper fun

I have no reservations about saying that. I adore a good stage show, so this wasn't exactly my first rodeo, which is why you should know that I'm not messing around.

They did it. Against all odds, this show is brilliant.

So, wanna see if we can break this down? 'Cause I keep going over it in my head, marveling at the fact that they made the Percy Jackson musical work.

How did they catch lightning in a bottle? I went into the second viewing (last week before the show closed) and made note of the following reasons this show is awesome:

1. This cast. I can't emphasize this one enough. THIS CAST. It's a small group of people, but I had the pleasure of meeting every single one of them after the second time I saw the performance and not only are they delightful people to meet, but they're also mad talented and slayers of this material.

2. The music. You gotta check out the cast recording that we are about to be blessed with at the end of June. I have preordered my copy. Let's have a listening party.

3. This one's a crowd pleaser. Whether you're familiar with the books or not, you're going to have an thoroughly good time at this show. Both times I went, I saw it with people who had not read the books. They had seen some of the movies. But everyone who left was happier than when they went in.

4. The humor. The show doesn't make the mistake of trying to take itself too seriously. The result? Two hours of relentless fun. See: the joke they make on stage about the lightning being some tinfoil-wrapped piece of cardboard from some crappy "off Broadway show". Incredible.

when ur pen is rly a sword (and ur Chris McCarrell)

5. The space. The Lortel is a small theater, which means that pretty much everyone has a great seat. It makes you feel like you're in the show, so really? It's the closest you can come to actually attending Camp Half-Blood.

6. There's something of an underdog feeling to this show that just makes you root for it. We all know that this material probably shouldn't work, but somehow, a magical combination has produced an off-Broadway dynamo.

It's just a riot.

Another interesting point is that parents were bringing their kids to this show, but the adults were having just as good of a time as the kids. When they toilet papered the first five rows of the audience, the little boy in front of me was having the best day of his life, but his dad was also pretty excited.

I have no shame about this show. I thought it might be the worst thing I'd ever seen, but it turned out to be right up there among my favorite stage experiences of my whole life. I haven't been able to stop talking about it.

Bottom line: this show has major possibilities. The only other time I remember an audience being so excited for a show was when I saw Hamilton in January. People were also very excited when I went to see Anastasia last month. Both of those shows are the kinds of things that people wait months, even years for. And here's this little off-Broadway show that's actually more fun than anything on the "real" Broadway stage with an equally dedicated following. This is how little shows become big.

So here is my plea. I know the show has closed, but wouldn't it be wonderful if it could reopen? Like, please stay?? Please open somewhere else close by? Please move to Broadway?

Since the Lortel has been cleaned out and disassembled, I can't ask Percy's future-predicting Oracle anymore, but regardless, I'm pretty positive I'd get this answer: good things are in the Percy Jackson musical's future. Because a good thing (and a "good kid") like this can't possibly slip through the cracks. This is lightning in a bottle, people. We gotta catch it while we can.

-

Thanks for the amazing gifs, Broadway Box!