The pilot for the show
Somebodies leaves much to be desired. Though it succeeds in defining who the main characters are, their characterization falls flat. The little bit of characterization present in the first couple of episodes is very superficial and ridiculously stereotypical. Perhaps the point of the show is for black people to rise out of stereotypes by knowingly portraying those very stereotypes. But instead of clearly understanding that purpose, I was left with the feeling that all of the jokes and characters to come in the script would be predictable. I am still unclear as to the purpose of some of the characters. All of Scottie's friends sort of run together and lack distinctive traits other than their physical appearance. I don't know why his ex-girlfriend is still in the picture, though she certainly adds some spice with her risky acting choices.
As far as the acting goes, it is less than believable, especially the younger, primary characters, which is unfortunate. The strongest actors by far are the older actors who play Scottie's relatives and the churchgoers. Other than those few, who got some laughs out of me with their detailed character acting, the acting is bland.
The story lines were fairly well intertwined though at times there wasn't a clear definition between the A and B story lines. There were certain well-planned moments, such as the meeting of Scottie, the club leader, Scottie's friend, and the tennis instructor.
The second episode does have a more intriguing story and gives a little more insight into Scottie's character. There is an arc, and there are definite improvements from the pilot, but I'm not sure they are enough to compell audiences to watch a third episode.
.jpg)
Take a look at my comments on David's and Courtney's blogs.
ReplyDeleteYour comparison of the acting abilities of the guys to the family is astute. The family members are all stand-up comedians, with little acting experience. The guys also have little experience, with the exception of two of them, who both graduated from the UGA drama school. We were going toward a documentary, observational look at these people and their lives. We created a strong sense of place and then let the characters live there, as we watch. It's not quite THE OFFICE, but is intended to fall somewhere between there and Seinfield.
As to stereotypes, I think that is an easy criticism to apply here. But I'd be cautious in using it, as stereotypes are so labeled because they contain truths about subcultures. And those living in those subcultures don't consider themselves stereotypical. Is it a label that non subcuture members are able to apply?
People in dominant groups impose sometimes that label on residual groups, but dominant group members rarely view themselves as stereotypical. Take a look at Raymond William's work on DOMINANT, RESIDUAL, EMERGENT as he applies them to the fluid nature of culture and see if it is relevant here.
Williams, Raymond. 1961. The long revolution. New York: Columbia University Press.