From: Ben Karlin
To: Elizabeth Wurtzel

I’m not sure you are going to get your handbag this way. Go for it! Just put it out there that you want one. Why beat around the bush?

Everything I want is vague and ill-defined. That goes for life goals too. I have no ability whatsoever to look into the future and conjure a picture of what my life will be – or even what I want it to be. Please read this in as un-angsty voice as possible. It does not make me nervous. Just a bitch to shop for.

I am working on a bunch of crap for HBO. Though that is not how I pitched it to them. I presented it in a manner that would make them think it is going to be quite good. I am writing a pilot about the world’s 237th richest man. We have another show, written by someone else, about a UFO alien death cult set in northern Wisconsin, and a third, loosely based on my book, which is a comedy-variety show built around the theme of failed relationships. As much as I loved working on a daily show, there is something about the promise and possibility of developing multiple ideas that thrills me more. Like, even though I ground myself down to a nub running multiple shows, the idea of having multiple shows is still thrilling. This inability to learn from past experience could be labeled either “boundless enthusiasm” or “fatal flaw.”

I really don’t want to get into a New York neighborhood apologia. In the 9 years I have been here I have lived in the West Village, Hell’s Kitchen, Greenpoint, Greenwich Village proper, off the Bowery in Noho, Clinton Hill and Fort Greene. What does that say about me other than settle the fuck down? There were things I loved about each place, though I loved Hell’s Kitchen least. Right now, I do live in Brooklyn, ambivalently. Don’t hate me for it. Hate me for a number of other reasons, which I would be more than happy to elucidate herein.

I am not now, nor have I ever been a birkenstock wearer. Here, however, for the purposes of partial disclosure, are some things I have worn or done that embarrass me in retrospect, though I stop short of regret:

1. Wore an earring briefly in high school, and again in college
   
2. Goatee for about a week, also in college
   
3. Wore a bandana in that hippee-helmet kind of way, though at a summer camp, which makes it slightly less obnoxious.
   
4. Frequently wore white tube socks with sneakers and shorts while not engaging in athletic activity
   
5. Killed a man just to watch him die

One of those things actually does not embarrass me.

Next: What the memoirist and the comedy writer have in common

In Treatment: Is it ok that we're standing this close?Previously: Part One, Part Two

Emily Gould: Ok, I'm caught up now -- have you seen the episode where he goes to see his own therapist yet?

Elisa Albert: Amazing. Yes. And truly it was the reason for continuing to watch. Loved especially how Paul challenges and tests her in much the same way as he is continually challenged/tested by his own patients. Was such a primal scene. And Diane Wiest i've adored since "Parenthood". Anyone?

But since then, nothing. I can't watch. Not, like, emotionally-can't. Literally: can't. My frickin' cable is malfunctioning and the benevolent support team at TimeWarner has offered me a fourteen-hour window sometime next month when they may or may not come and possibly fix it. (And what, pray tell, am I supposed to do to occupy myself during said fourteen-hour window if my cable isn't working?)

What's sadder: that my cable has been out for two days or that I'm sad that my cable has been out for two days? I'm having some feelings about my feelings. Help.

In the absence of anything else to talk about, I will therefore resort to base gossip: Britney's therapist? The one who got her committed? As identified in all the rags as one Dr. Deborah Nadel of Santa Monica? Only slightly off point, but guess what? Totally my high school shrink. Which explains. So. Much.

Emily: Ha! Have you ever had the conversation with any of your shrinks about what it would take to get committed? I never had until recently. I had been hedgy about spitting something out (uh, uncharacteristic, n'duh), and she was like "why did you hesitate?" and I was like, "I was thinking that would be the one thing I could say that would make you be ethically obligated to call the men in the white coats to cart me away." She laughed -- I mean, she didn't GUFFAW, but she definitely CHUCKLED -- and was like "that will never happen."

I have to admit, I was sort of disappointed.

Anyway, I have only seen one episode of 'In Treatment' post- Paul's visit to Diane Wiest, who is aging really well. I found that it was harder to take him seriously now that we know all his fallibilities. Not to ruin it for you, but his next visit with Laura, his responsible-adult-in-charge facade kinda cracks.

Anyway, I'm sorry about your cable! I didn't have cable -- or TV for that matter -- for four months recently and it was sort of cleansing. Towards the end, though, I stopped having anything to talk to anyone about. Don't let that happen to you.

Previously: Part One

Elisa Albert: "Dude, one of the things I've been, ah, addressing in therapy is my tendency to open right up and overshare immediately, without demanding my trust be earned, etc. so that i not infrequently wind up having my emotional ass handed to me by pretty much whoever. So screw that, I'm not sharing deep/dark secrets.
(Maybe tomorrow.)

Emily's right about the in-love-with-shrink cliche, but it's such a rich cliche, as cliches go. I don't think it's necessarily even a carnal love thing; the prospect of another human being who is de facto always on your side, who validates your feelings and does not judge, and with whom you are free to be absolutely honest = LOVE. Especially in contrast to the difficulties of a two-sided relationship in which one must compromise, take responsibility, and maintain a sometimes-uncomfy level of vulnerability.

You know how some Christians describe Christ's love? Perfect, whole, accepting, forgiving. The closest thing I can imagine is my favorite shrink (I've had a few over the years, as geographical-shifts necessitate). And let's not forget: you only see this person once a week. The less you see someone, the easier they are to love. (Who's fucked up now, hombres?)

Anyway, I've heard the kashrut for such things is that the therapy relationship stops, two years must pass, then the therapist/patient can run off together and live happily ever after. Until each begins therapy with someone new..."

Emily Gould: "I agree with Elisa, Tahl: expecting us to air our dirty laundry just because we're watching a show about therapy? Come on. (Maybe I'll show you one dirty sock, but I'm not about to spill my guts. They're not nearly as interesting as Blair Underwood's character's guts! He killed some children!)

Anyway, maybe I'm immune to the charms Laura's shrink-love storyline cause I've never felt that way about a therapist. Even though mine validates my feelings etc, I've never thought of her as nonjudgmental. I worry a lot about her approval, actually! And the approval of ... pretty much everyone else, including anonymous strangers! Actually, that's one of the things we talk about. Hmm.

What did you think of last night's episode? I guess we're meant to be anticipating the moment when the fighter pilot character's bluster breaks down and he shows a human sliver of guilt for what he's done. Last night, though, seemed to just be about laying the groundwork for this moment, and I have to admit, it didn't hold my interest. I did enjoy the moment towards the end when he flat-out asked his therapist for advice and was frustrated when he was denied. Doesn't he understand that therapy is all about getting the input you need to figure out what you need to be doing on your own? Or was the therapist ethically remiss -- should he have given him the potentially life-saving input he needed? Of course, the stakes weren't really that high for the audience. After all, we know he won't fly back to the scene of his crime and be harmed -- after all, he has to show up for next week's session."

HBO is having an Israel moment. The network’s new show, "In Treatment," is so closely based on an Israeli series that the American actors aren't allowed to watch the Israeli version, lest they learn too much about the future of the characters. And after six months of negotiations, it looks like HBO will be buying the rights to another Israeli drama, “A Touch Away."

Says Carolyn Strauss, president of HBO entertainment, “I don’t know what’s in the drinking water there. But for as tiny as that country is, they make some interesting television shows.”

“A Touch Away” follows the romance between a secular Russian immigrant and a haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) girl who’s already been matched off with an observant fiance. Reviews in the Jewish media have been hugely positive. As one reader who saw a screening at the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival put it on IMDB: “No one left the theater to go to the bathroom. A 10 out of 10.”

So far, opinions about HBO’s version of "In Treatment" -- including ours! -- have been mixed, but Blair Underwood’s episodes, in which he plays a former army pilot who bombed a madrassa full of children, look like they should be good. Check out the clip below.

Gabriel Byrne: buttoning that top button might go a long way towards avoiding transference issues.HBO's buzzed about new series, "In Treatment" -- about a therapist, his clients, and his own therapy -- offers an interesting variation on the usual TV series rhythm we all know and love. Instead of one episode per week, the show will air every weeknight: each episode a therapy session with one patient, including, on Fridays, the therapist in therapy himself!

The show is adapted from a smash-hit Israeli show called Be' Tipul ("In Therapy").

Since we (Jews and the Jewcy staff, both) know a thing or two about therapy -- insert Portnoy and/or Freud and/or Woody Allen reference here -- we felt we should watch the show (consistently, because consistency is key) and work through some of our feelings about it. But not our feelings about our feelings, because that would be fucked up. You should never have feelings about your feelings.

For those of us still deep in mourning for the philosophical miracle that was "Six Feet Under", watching "In Treatment" may serve as a healing balm, much like actually being in therapy, but without all the, you know, talking and shit. Critical response has been mixed. But whatever. How did it make us feel?

 

Continue reading...

"My mudda didn't love me enough": The cracked masculinity of Tony SopranoIn the pilot episode of The Sopranos, mob captain Tony Soprano and his teenage daughter Meadow sit in an old, empty church. Tony marvels at the place—its grandeur, its history—and tries to get his daughter to do the same. “Your great-grandfather and his brother Frank—they built this place. Stone and marble workers,” he says with pride. Meadow is skeptical—just the two of them? “No,” Tony explains. “They were two guys on a crew of, you know, ...

Isaac Chotiner at TNR's The Plank gets it exactly right:

The most telling/pathetic moment on a recent episode occurred when Ayaan Hirsi Ali blasted the Bush administration for attacking Afghanistan rather than Saudi Arabia after 9/11 (she apparently misspoke: Hirsi Ali was clearly in favor of military action in Afghanistan, too). Sure enough, the audience burst into applause. Why? I'd like to believe it's because the House of Saud runs an autocratic state and funds terrorism. I think it's a bit more likely, however, that the real reason has to do with America's closness to Saudi Arabia and the Bush family's closeness to the Saudi royals.

Still, you can be sure if Bush had attacked Saudi Arabia after 9/11, the same audience would be clapping for whatever guest was speaking out against the war.

Can't these shows function without a gallery of tiresome fans?

The fans are not just tiresome, they're irretrievably stupid. You could satellite-feed a message from Osama calling the president less than bright and still expect at least a few giggles and claps.

Anything said by Maher with a big-insight-coming-up deepening of timbre is met with yelps and cheers. (I once heard applause after Maher came right out and said Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein. Even if you agree with this sentiment, and I don't, doesn't it call for solemn appraisal rather than trotter-flapping approbation?)

From that kitsch, CentCom soundstage (how's that for declaring antiwar bona fides?) to the groaning and predictable "New Rules," Maher has made a minor art out of getting people to believe that banality is radical and that he's a martyr for mouthing the opinions of every editorialist in the country. What's really going on here?

Recall that he lost "Politically Incorrect" after 9/11 for saying that Mohammed Atta and company were brave, not cowardly, for killing themselves along with thousands of American civilians. Cowardice, said Maher, is firing rockets from a battleship into some foreign ministry or third world citadel. Even Rush Limbaugh -- normally the point-man on tactical combat and just war theory -- found merit in this contrast.

Ari Fleischer was then asked about Maher's chatter and Fleischer's terrifyingly Orwellian reply (to a different question, by the way) was along the lines of, "We all should watch what we say." This was interpreted by our hero of late night as a genuine threat and the cause for his subsequent unemployment. That ABC, owned by Disney, lost advertising revenue because of Maher of course had nothing to do with the network's decision to lose him, too.

Check out some of his talk not just immediately following this incident, but long after it, and decide for yourself whether Maher's opposition to the administration is rooted entirely in principle and not in vendetta. Then ask yourself if the unfunny comic with a TimesSelect account has spent the last few years battling a bygone White House flack as a distraction from the real hunt for Mickey Mouse.