VALENTINE'S DAY - A bullet point commentary

• I HATE Valentine's Day.

THERE'S HOPE FOR THE GRAMMYS AS U2 WINS BIG

I actually make a conscious choice NOT to watch the Grammys each year simply because when it comes to music, the Grammys are about as meaningful and as engaging as the Teen Choice Awards. But last week I couldn’t resist catching a glimpse here and there of the award ceremony just to see if my favourite band, U2 would get the recognition they deserve. All the buzz was centered on Mariah Carey for her come back album and on Kanye West for his popular debut album. So I fully expected one of them to win the top honour, Album of the Year. Much to my surprise and my delight, they didn’t win – one of the rare moments in Grammy history when they got it right.

Of course there’s been some backlash from critics claiming that the voting panel always rewards veterans over newcomers. Whateverrrrr! U2 won the honour for two reasons: they have one of the best sounds in rock history and How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb is a phenomenal album. Besides, U2 should have won the award pretty much every time they came out with a new album. The last time they received the honour was in 1988 for The Joshua Tree, which was a no brainer considering it’s the best rock album of all time. But since then, they should have also won for Rattle and Hum (the best live album of all time), for Achtung Baby, for Zooropa, and for All That You Can’t Leave Behind.

And although U2’s critics are still very vocal about the group’s music being too commercial, about their sound being too tired, and about their image being too preachy, I maintain that U2 at their worst, is still better than most musical acts at their best – partly because they have sustained a sound that no other act has even come close to; a sound that, contrary to some, has not grown old. Not to mention that live, they are nothing less than an auditory phenomenon – as U2 remains one of the few artists whose live sound actually improves upon their already superb recorded sound. I’ve been to several of their concerts and all I can say is that seeing U2 live is like having a two-hour orgasm. It’s complete musical ecstacy – a spiritual high that it is very difficult to come down from.

But I think the main reason some people have a problem with the Irish quartet is that U2 is essentially the Spielberg of rock. In other words, U2 is able to strike the balance between high art and mass art, making intelligent music that also has mass, commercial appeal, just as Spielberg does with film. But balance is not only the key to life; it is also the key to art. And because U2 is able to strike that balance, pretentious rock connoisseurs will always have a problem with them, just like pretentious film connoisseurs will always have a problem with Spielberg.

IS FAMILY GUY THE NEW SIMPSONS?

The Simpsons debuted in 1989 and forever changed the face of television. No one could have foreseen the dramatic impact such a show would have on popular culture. For The Simpsons is not merely a cultural phenomenon, The Simpons is popular culture – as rarely has such an intelligent show also enjoyed such mass appeal. In truth, The Simpsons has been nothing less than the greatest comic achievement in the history of any medium. Many have tried, and in fact, there has been many imitations, all enjoying varying degrees of success, but no other comedy series, animated or otherwise, has even come close to the brilliant satirical writing of The Simpsons. And so I never thought I would see the day when something could rival and possible surpass the comic genius of The Simpsons. But that day may be here as Family Guy has demonstrated extraordinary promise and seems poised to overtake The Simpsons as the premier television comedy phenomenon. In fact, if there is any show that could dethroneThe Simpsons has the all-time greatest television comedy, it could be Family Guy.

One reason for this is that Family Guy is fairly fresh while The Simpsons has clearly had its peak and is basically on the decline. The longevity of Matt Groening’s creation is testament to the fact that a new audience is continually discovering The Simpsons and that the writing is basically as good as it’s always been. In fact, with The Simpsons, brilliant writing created brilliant characters who in turn perpetually inspired brilliant writing. But the truth is that for those of us who have been with the show since the beginning, the characters just don’t have the same impact presently. Mainly because they can’t really surprise us anymore – we’ve seen everything they have to offer and for the past few years they’re merely offering more of the same. What else can Homer do to shock or surprise us? But still, even today, a mediocre episode of The Simpsons, is still better than most comedy series at their best. In fact, it’s hard for me to think of any Simpsons episode that doesn’t have at least one laugh out loud moment – itself a remarkable achievement considering how long its been on the air. Even episodes that didn’t strike me as particularly funny initially would end up blowing me away with a second viewing.

Now Family Guy is on the scene, and has been so, off and on, for the past few years – and of all the cheap Simpsons knock off, Family Guy is the only one that’s ever really caught my attention. In fact, I’ve seen things on Family Guy that are nothing less than pure comic genius – things that have not only rivaled what I’ve seen on The Simpsons, but in some cases surpassed them. That in itself is a miracle as I was very sure that The Simpsons represented nothing less than comic perfection. And even though The Simpsons laid the groundwork and clearly opened the doors for Family Guy, Seth McFarlane’s creation is taking what The Simpsons started to whole other level.

But not so fast, there are a couple of problems with Family Guy and here they are:

• Peter Griffin is a funny character, but he’s no Homer Simpson. Homer is still the funniest character in the history of television and no matter how funny Peter Griffin is, he’ll always seem like an inferior version of Homer. Homer is always funny even when the writing on The Simpsons is mediocre at best.
• The Simpsons has a far greater array of classic, memorable, funny characters where as Family Guy really only has three funny characters – Peter, Brian and the brilliant comic creation, Stewie.
• The Family Guy still has much to prove in terms of longevity. It has demonstrated the potential to surpass The Simpsons, but The Simpsons has sustained remarkable quality for a very long time. In fact, The Simpsons has been the best comic series on television pretty much since its third season – consistently maintaining a high level of comedy. Family Guy has yet to match that achievement. And although Family Guy has some episodes that are nothing less than comic brilliance, there have been many mediocre episodes – i.e. Family Guy is more hit and miss than The Simpsons, although when Family Guy does have a hit, it’s usually a home run.
• The major problem I have with Family Guy is that they don’t know when to draw the line. To its creators and writers, nothing is sacred, which might be a good gimmick for attracting shock junkies and boosting ratings, but doesn’t make for good comedy. A laugh at any expense is no laugh at all. Anyone can elicit a laugh by mocking the sacred and delving into territory that should be left untouched. Jokes about child molestation, rape and the holocaust are NOT funny and in very poor taste. They’re a turn off and they detract from the other brilliant comic elements in a given episode. The Simpsons was more or less always able to push the boundaries without crossing the line into bad taste and crass, cheap shots. Family Guy has passed that line far too many times.
  
  
  The bottom line: Family Guy represents a turning point in the evolution of television comedy just as The Simpsons did. And although The Simpsons started it all, Family Guy is picking up from where Matt Groening’s creation left off, taking television comedy to the next level. However, the writers of Family Guy have much to learn in the way of restraining their impulse to mock all that is sacred. Until they get that under control, their potential for brilliant comic actualization will always be undermined.