A Man. And His Blog.

Season 1, Episode 3 (3)
Date of airing: Jan 25, 2012 (NBC)
Watched for review: Jan 28, 2012
Number of review in January/2012: 119/129

Dammit! Hilarious episode. I wondered when this show would become good. I have flashbacks to 100 QUESTIONS, and how good this show actually was in its last few episodes (I know, there were only six of them, but I watched them all). Can it be that ARE YOU THERE, CHELSEA? will also be that funny in a couple of episodes? So, why aren’t the writers able to bring the fun in during the pilot? Damn TV pilots to hell!

I loved the Celibacy Jam session. Especially the battle between Sloane (Chelsea Handler) and Nikki (Natasha Leggero) was to cry for. And I was actually crying, when Nikki started to baby-cry and brought Sloane to leak on the stage. The funniest scene in the episode, and probably even the funniest scene in a multicam sitcom in years (probably not, but I can’t remember having laughed that hard during a multicam sitcom). I hope Chelsea Handler has some time to continue her starring in this one, because I wanna have more of the duel Nikki vs. Sloane. It wouldn’t be bad, when this show had a running comedy gag, and since this one worked in this episode, the writers should work on it. Otherwise the show falls back to being unimportant and forgettable with the next episode.

I also liked that Dee Dee (Lauren Lapkus) was included in a plot, and didn’t just stand there, like in the last episode. Even though I wonder how Chelsea (Laura Prepon) is BFF with her after two episodes of nothingness. Maybe it’s just because Dee Dee isn’t much of a character yet, and only being used for the comedy of the show. But it was good to have her at the front of a story, giving her a romance. And Dee Dee looked much cuter in not being the running gag of the show.

There could have been more gags with Luke (Austin Butler) though. It’s a bit awkward to see him guest starring in this show, dating a Twentysomething, while he’s flirting with a deaf teen in another show. What a shame that the writers haven’t continued to make a joke out of his character, when he was dry-humping Chelsea in the van (though I don’t believe a Christian with a hung for celibacy would dry-hump a “hot” blond in-between music sessions). His singing act at the end was horrible though. Austin might become a real rocker in the future, but he should stay away from singing and performing in the shows he stars in. Doesn’t look very good.

It’s nice that the writers seemed to have found the groove of the show. A few more dirty jokes, and it could actually be considered a sister of 2 BROKE GIRLS. I wouldn’t mind to have another dirty sitcom. But the writers should stop trying so hard to make this show look like “people in a bar making dirty jokes”. The comedy should be more fluently. 7.5/10

There's a cross in the canyon

And now the mountains in the canyon have a leak

Season 1, Episode 2 (2)
Date of airing: Jan 18, 2012 (NBC)
Watched for review: Jan 20, 2012
Number of review in January/2012: 92/98

Yep, as expected, this episode was better than the pilot. For a couple of reasons: I was smiling, because the jokes were getting naughtier; Laura Prepon was more into her role than before (I don’t know why); and Chelsea Handler. Why is the person behind the show the best in the cast, and why hasn’t she decided to take on the titular role, and make a good comedy about her life? It’s hurting me to see that the producers are wasting a lot of opportunities for some greatness.

Well, at least the comedy was working better. What did I say about why CBS sitcoms were better? They were ballsy, risking something, the jokes were naughty and racy. Now that ARE YOU THERE, CHELSEA? brings quotes like “Somewhere in Jersey, a hot tub is missing a slut”, the writers should actually be able to bring a few more of those gags. The writers definitely have watched some TWO AND A HALF MEN episodes, and maybe even 2 BROKE GIRLS, so it shouldn’t be a problem to make this show more racy in the future. Especially when it wants to live for more than a year.

The story was boring though. Ex-boyfriends, ex-girlfriends, having sex and non-sex, and comments. Blah. The only likable thing about Matt’s (Ryan Gaul) “return” in Sloane’s life, despite the two not having any contact at all, was Sloane’s face, when Dee Dee (Lauren Lapkus) told her she was better in bed than Chelsea. Hey, something funny! But the rest was just not my thing, and not even a real storyline. I’m already expecting for the lesson Chelsea has learned at the end to disappear in the next episode, and I’m expecting that Chelsea and Sloane will have even more problems with each other in the rest of the very short life of this show. And not even Rick (Jake McDorman) and the Olivia (Ali Wong) can save it, because they are just there to make comments, and to make the show feel like it has more than just the “normal” Chelsea and the “crazy and lovable” Dee Dee.

By the way: terrible writing, when it comes to Dee Dee. I had the feeling she wasn’t even in the scene, when she gave her comments. First at the breakfast table, where Chelsea and Olivia were talking about Matt, and Dee Dee just sat there, cracked jokes, but no one listened. Same goes with the scene in the bedroom. At first it felt like Dee Dee was again just there and no one listened to her, but when Chelsea started to talk to her, it felt so forced to have Dee Dee in that scene. So I hope the writers are getting her character better into the story, or she is becoming worse with time.

And finally. Now I’m interested if Nikki (Natasha Leggero) is gonna return in the next episode. She’s kind of the character you’d suspect to be recurring, but when the writers don’t even know how to handle half of the cast and bring them into proper storylines, why should they introduce ANOTHER character in this episode? 5.5/10

Breasts!

Chelsea! The real one!

Season 1, Episode 1
Date of airing: Jan 11, 2012 (NBC)
Watched for review: Jan 13, 2012
Number of review in January/2012: 59/59

You can say anything against old-skewing CBS you want, but you have to accept that they are delivering mostly great and humorous comedy shows, which don’t looks like kidnapped from the 90s and placed in today’s schedule to go for the punchline. ABC, FOX and NBC try to hop on the sitcom train CBS is captaining, but with every new multicam sitcom, they are failing. FOX recently failed with I HATE MY TEENAGE DAUGHTER, while ABC just got rid of WORK IT (which kind of is a shame – as being one of the five people on this planet who liked the second episode). And NBC didn’t even make new friends with WHITNEY (which I still have to test). Now they are coming around the corner with ARE YOU THERE VODKA? IT’S ME, CHELSEA, which is a much better title than the one above this text. Another laughing-track sitcom with hot babes and even hotter guys; another sitcom, which tries to be edgy, but doesn’t have anything else to offer than some sex stories and the usual relationship crap. But ARE YOU THERE, CHELSEA? doesn’t know what it wants, and it doesn’t find the comedy timing of its cast. And the biggest reason why this pilot is horribly failing (while CBS sitcoms are mostly working): it doesn’t risk anything, it isn’t courageous, it’s isn’t scandalous, it doesn’t give its cast the opportunity to shine with their own comedic timing. Instead the script is looking for the gags and punchlines, not giving the cast anything to do. ARE YOU THERE, CHELSEA? is the most current example of how a sitcom never works, when it looks and feels like a relic from the 90s.

ARE YOU THERE, CHELSEA? is loosely based on the essay collection of one Chelsea Handler, who tells funny and witty stories about her life and times in the Twenties in her 2008 published book “Are You There, Vodka? It’s Me, Chelsea”. Laura Prepon takes on the role of the twentysomething Chelsea Newman, who is a funny person without a clear goal in life. Instead she parties, drinks, drives under the influence, gets arrested, and has to be bailed out of the realm of hard-on lesbians by her pregnant sister Sloane (Chelsea Handler, surprisingly not playing herself). Chelsea’s free spirit is a small theme in the show, and it doesn’t stop her from taking nothing for granted and doing what she can do best: praying to Vodka, having sex with one night stands, and loads of fun with her colleagues and friends.

You gotta have to ask what Chelsea Handler is thinking about her “own” show, when she doesn’t even have time to play the lead role, instead has a recurring role as her own character’s sister. Yes, she is busy with CHELSEA LATELY on E! and all the other stuff she is doing, but why not going for the ultimate and taking the lead role? This very much hurts this show, because Laura Prepon is just not suited enough for the role as Chelsea: to tiring her acting, her comedy timing is completely missing, and her voiceovers can be used as sleeping pills. How this unpeppered and non-salted pilot went through the development stages and through the hands of the executives at NBC is a mystery. I have to say that ARE YOU THERE, CHELSEA? has some good things going on for itself, but compared to all the bad things, the good stuff gets trampled on during the first five minutes already. Or to see some improvements over the next couple of episodes. If a sitcom wants to be funny, it has to find the chemistry between the actors, and this chemistry felt more than forced in the pilot.

In addition, the sitcom wants to be something special, just so it can show a contrast to the other sitcoms on TV land: It not only tries to set up itself to be a multicam sitcom (with all the laugh tracks one can get), but also tries to look like a singlecam sitcom in its two small flashback scenes. Unfortunately, those two sequences didn’t feel like they were belonging in this episode and were kidnapped from a complete different show. To push the success of an edgy sitcom, when the producers aren’t even clear on the style of their sitcom, just hurts the storytelling. And again, the humor of it all. And together with the pretty much bad cast (Handler and the awesome Lauren Lapkus can be considered exceptions), the audience doesn’t have much difficulties to stamp this show with “nice try, but completely shitty” and forget it real fast.

Other than that, ARE YOU THERE, CHELSEA? hurts, because it only speaks to one minor targeted audience: the young women, who, similar to Chelsea, are open about their life and free from any worries. But the thing is: Is there actually a targeted audience like this out there? That the connection between the audience and Chelsea (the character in the show) can’t be build, is not just the fault of the out-of-sorts cast (especially Laura Prepon), but also the fault of the script, which proves to be missing all kinds of character moments and instead wanders from one edgy joke to another, while totally missing the punchline. This is why the comedy doesn’t work as well as in 2 BROKE GIRLS or TWO AND A HALF MEN – the script is just not bold enough to live in this world of sitcom television. At the end, ARE YOU THERE, CHELSEA? depraved to a sitcom, whose look is still stuck somewhere in the 90s, and whose language tries to connect to the CBS audiences.

The sitcom still can be good, when the writers and producers find a way to demolish their faults, mistakes and ridiculousness (and maybe fire the cast and hire new actors). As long as ARE YOU THERE, CHELSEA? doesn’t even try to be a groundbreaking comedy, which lets it shine like the involved people behind the cameras are in it with heart and soul, then the audience will never believe in it, and NBC can cancel it. Cast and crew can be nice people, and they can have fun during the production. It doesn’t help the show though. ARE YOU THERE, CHELSEA? has therefore reserved a place besides HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN, I HATE MY TEENAGE DAUGHTER and WORK IT as one of the worst comedy pilots in the current TV season. The sitcom output is pretty pathetic this year – on all the four big networks. 2.5/10

Are you there, Vodka? I'm thirsty for some lesbionics

Sex with an Irish redhead seems to be a big goal for sober Chelsea