As much as I support the members of the WGA, I haven't been terribly impacted by the writers' strike. Nothing on basic cable makes me want to sit through the endless commercials, and I gave up digital when "The Sopranos" ended. All the TV shows I watch nowadays are DVDs of Canadian or British television - "Slings and Arrows", yes, and also "Corner Gas" and "Robson Arms". Both are available on DVD, and both are funny as hell (the latter in a creepier, more morbid fashion, but morbid is good).

The British shows I've fallen in love with include "Black Books", "Spaced", and "Father Ted". I can't think of an American show in the past five years that I liked as much as any of these. Okay, there was a brief, grim flirtation with "Studio 60", but... the less said about that, the better.

Peep Show

http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/P/peep_show/

I enjoyed Slings & Arrows--a lot. Miller's article, however, is marred by factual errors (Geoffrey's breakdown occurs during Ophelia's burial scene, not during the Yorick monologue; it's in Season One, not Season Two, that Richard is manipulated by Holly Day; the rebranding grant in Season Two (a loan, actually) comes from the Canadian Ministry of Culture, not a bottled water company; the Bolivian band in Season Three has only one flutist, and is mostly a string and percussion ensemble).

More problematic, however, is Miller's suggestion that each season's backstage dramas "mirror the famous dilemmas of each play." The real strength of the show is that it refuses to provide such a literal and simplistic connection (except, possibly, in the comparatively weak Season Three). Instead of a mirror, the show at its best provides counterpoint and accompaniment to the Bard's classics. This makes the series even better than Miller says it is.

I discovered S&L last summer, and promptly devoured all three seasons. It's so, so funny, so, so wise, and often deeply moving. I'm delighted to see the series getting more attention.

I just bought the entire 3 seasons and watched it in a few days ( 3 episodes a day). It really does make you laugh and make you cry. The old cliche. No cheap laughs either. My husband, who is dyslexic and for whom Shakespeare back in school is a thing of his nightmares, loved the show, too. So well cast and so authentic, or so it seems. I bet tonnes of references go over both our heads, but that doesn't seem to matter. I started watching because I love Paul Gross, and by the end I came to appreciate his wife Martha Burns more. She could make me laugh with a line delivered (in the character's mind)totally straight. Those big blue eyes of hers.

Well worth a view. It can be corny at times, but even that's great to watch. Paul Gross is especially, er, en-grossing (see, corny can be fun!), and it's an added bonus for me that he was the Canadian of my dreams when I was a kid watching "Due South." (Anyone? Anyone?)

The sad thing about the Slings and Arrows series is that all of the creators and actors in the show have all participated in the two deadly Canadian theatre festivals that they skewer -- the Stratford and Shaw Festivals -- and thus have contributed to their deadliness over the years before deciding that they could make more money doing a parody of them and selling it to American audiences. They have all sat at the same bars, gotten paid enormous amounts of money to do the very same ham acting that they make fun of in the series, engaged in the same shenanigans that their characters get mixed up in. The hypocrisy is actually amazing when you think about it. S&A is hardly a parody. What American audiences do not realize is that the show more of a documentary of Canadian theatre. When you see the characters engaged in cheesiness, it's not like watching Ian McKellen in Extras engaged in cheesiness, ie. a great actor having fun, its watching cheesy Canadian actors being more cheesy than they usually are ie. pretty mediocre actors realizing that they can cash in on their cheesiness. If the series itself is not edgy or innovative, it is because the creators, while trying to mock a theatrical system they see themselves above of, are actually more a part of the system than they realize.

Wow, Sally sounds bitter. Personally, I enjoy the Stratford Festival. The Shaw Festival, not so much, though the town's gardens are lovely.

And thanks for the review, Laura.

Laura Miller begins her article on Slings and Arrow by saying that theatre is "nearly always bad." What an astonishing comment!

I don't understand how she can so cavalierly dismiss an entire art form. How much theatre does she see each year? Has she explored Broadway, Off-Broadway, Off-Off-Broadway, regional theatre?

Perhaps she just doesn't like theatre--a different thing entirely than it being "nearly always bad."

Personally, I am endlessly astonished at the breadth of talent in this world. I have seen excellent theatre in big theatres and small, professional and amateur.

Is theatre's batting average better than TV's? Books'? Dancing's? Probably not. They all have a large range of success--and failure. But "nearly always bad"? I don't think so.

And I like theatre. But maybe 1 out every 3 or 4 theatrical productions that I've taken in have actually been rip roaring good entertainment. Many plays I've been to have actually made me to cringe with embarassment for the actors and director. On the other hand, a really great play or musical will have me thinking, humming, and talking about it for weeks afterwards.

Zahra M.:

If you enjoy creepy, morbid comedy, please check out "The League of Gentlemen" series if you haven't already. It's cringe- and squirm-inducing hilarity! Easily my favorite of recent Brit coms. I'm also a big "Spaced" fan.

wendyxc:

Laura Miller begins her article on Slings and Arrow by saying that theatre is "nearly always bad."... I don't understand how she can so cavalierly dismiss an entire art form... Has she explored Broadway, Off-Broadway,... Perhaps she just doesn't like theatre...

She does add the qualifier "nowadays," and in that sense I would certainly have to agree with her. I love going to the theatre, I spent over 15 years of my life being a stage actor, and the state of current theatre is abysmal.

Yes, there's still ample talent on the stage, but the actual productions (outside of a few gems like "Grey Gardens") are mostly dreck. This seems to be a direct result of the costs of staging a modern production. As costs spiral, and bigger and bigger 'blockbusters' are demanded, the entire catalog of what is produced gets dumbed down to appeal to a wider audience so producers can get asses (literally and figuratively) in the seats to recoup their expenses. Innovation and creativity fly out the window. It's the Hollywood syndrome infecting the stage. And Off-Broadway, which used to be a haven for bold new works, is now just a workshop for shows headed for Broadway.

Is theatre's batting average better than TV's? Books'? Dancing's? Probably not.

No, probably not. But when a book or TV show or film disappoints me, I'm not out $50-120.