Still Not Old

Danny Cooksey, Steve Vai and the fickle tastes of the American public.

Danny Cooksey has had one of the more prolific careers of any pre-internet Nickelodeon celebrity outside of Christine Taylor (and maybe Blake Sennett). Cooksey juggled multiple projects in several different fields through the early 90s and has since settled into steady voice acting work for cartoons (such as Invader Zim) and video games (like Quake 4). People between the ages of twenty and twenty-five probably remember Cooksey best as Bobby Budnick on the Nickelodeon summer-camp series Salute your Shorts (which ran from ‘91-’92). On Shorts Cooksey portrayed the wise-cracking, trouble-making, pop-metal-head who played foil to the power-tripping head counselor Kevin “Ug” Lee. For better or for worse, Cooksey’s work with Nickelodeon (not to mention his memorable role in Terminator 2) overshadows his contemporaneous foray into the world of pop/rock as the vocalist for the Steve Vai backed enterprise known as Bad4Good.

Forming in 1991, Bad4Good (which also featured a young Brooks Wackerman on drums) hit the market a year later with the album Refugee on Interscope records. In addition to an explicit version of the album, Interscope also issued a clean version (which charted at a peak of 31 on the Billboard Heatseekers chart [failing to chart elsewhere]). Although Bad4Good followed a tried and true format that had worked for bands such as Trixter as late as 1990, the tide had turned against hair band style pop and by the time the singles hit the airwaves, people were clambering for Nirvana (Nevermind hit the shelves in September of ‘91, Refugee came out almost exactly one year later). Unsurprisingly, despite some critical praise (not hard to garner when the masturbatory Steve Vai is your axeman), Refugee was a commercial flop and the group disbanded shortly after the release of the album.

Bands in the style of Bad4Good, like Stryper, Great White and so on, all had to prove two things with their first singles upon launching; first, the band had to prove it could hook a sentimental audience with a sappy ballad and second, the band had to compensate with a more straightforward rocker (the sequence rarely seems important). The singles selected for Skid Row’s 1989 self titled debut, for example were the undeniable rock tune “Youth Gone Wild“, paired against the weepy ballad “I Remember You.” Another prime example is Warrant’s first studio effort, Dirty Rotten Filthy Stinking Rich, which offered up the ballad; and mega-hit, “Heaven” set against the comparatively more aggressive “Down Boys.” Even though this paradigm had become completely outdated by the time Interscope released Refugee, the cuts chosen for singles fall directly in line with the formula, check it out,

Here is the ballad, “Nothin’ Great About a Heartache”

And here is the rocker, “Nineteen”

In sum, leaning on an outdated model coupled with the general generic feel of the tunes set up Bad4Good for failure at the outset. Had Bad4Good hit the scene as little as two years prior, there is a decent shot that they could have moved some serious units, but c’est la Vai.

-bryan

Where the recent comedy craze began.

It’s no secret that the Judd Apatow gang is running the show in comedy these days. Among his many credits, Apatow’s beautiful project Freaks and Geeks premiered some of the leading stars in the laughing game to date, specifically Seth Rogen, Jason Segel, and more recently with Pineapple Express James Franco. After Freaks and Geeks came Undeclared, another great series that Fox canceled just shy of a complete season. Rogen and Segel were included, as well newcomer Jay Baruchel who played the pseudo main character of the show. Apatow then went on to do The Forty Year-Old Virgin, again starring Rogen alongside Paul Rudd and Steve Carrell, and then Knocked Up, which included Rogen, Rudd, Segel, Baruchel, SNL’s Bill Hader and the newer member Jonah Hill. With Apatow bankrolling their projects, Rogen and Evan Goldberg’s Superbad was made which put Jonah Hill and Michael Cera in the mainstream, and Segel/Apatow’s Forgetting Sarah Marshall was a success as well and included Hill, Rudd, and Hader.

The interesting thing to note though is that this crew is much larger than it may seem and has been around for longer than it seems, stemming back to the early 90s. The genesis of the Apatow phenomenon was the short-lived FOX sketch seriesThe Ben Stiller Show. Between writers and actors we get the masterful Bob Odenkirk, David Cross, Judd Apatow, and obviously, Ben Stiller (Janeane Garofalo was around then, but is more involved in political commentary than comedy these days…Andy Dick is somewhere). Listed are some of the projects Apatow and company were affiliated with after The Ben Stiller Show:

• Heavy Weights (1995) - Written by Judd Apatow, starring Ben Stiller

• The Cable Guy (1996) - Directed by Ben Stiller, starring Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, and Jack Black, produced by Judd Apatow

• Mr. Show with Bob and David (TV)(1995-98) - Starring/written by Bob Odenkirk and David Cross, with guests Ben Stiller and Jack Black

• Zoolander (2000)- Written/Directed by Ben Stiller, Starring Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, and Will Ferrell

• Freaks and Geeks (TV) (1999) - Written by Judd Apatow, starring Seth Rogen, Jason Segel, James Franco, and Martin Starr with guest Ben Stiller

• Undeclared (TV) (2001) - Written by Judd Apatow, starring Jay Baruchel, Seth Rogen, Jason Segel, with guests Martin Starr, Ben Stiller, and Will Ferrell
• Arrested Development (TV) (2003-2006) - Starring David Cross, Michael Cera (and many, many other amazing people not related to the post), with guests Bob Odenkirk and Ben Stiller (and many, many other amazing people not related to the post)
• Tom Goes to the Mayor (TV) (2004-2006) - Included writer Bob Odenkirk, starring Bob Odenkirk with guests Jack Black and David Cross

• Anchorman (2004) - Produced by Judd Apatow, written by Will Ferrelll, starring Will Ferrell, Steve Crrell, Paul Rudd, with a bit of Seth Rogen, Ben Stiller and Jack Black

• The 40 Year-Old Virgin (2005) - Written by Judd Apatow and Steve Carell, directed by Judd Apatow, starring Steve Carell, Seth Rogen, and Paul Rudd

• Talladega Nights (2006) - Written by Will Ferrell, starring Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly, produced by Judd Apatow
• Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job! (TV) (2007-present) - Starring Bob Odenkirk and John C. Reilly, with guest David Cross

• Knocked Up (2007) - Written/Directed by Judd Apatow, starring Seth Rogen, Paul Rudd, Jason Segel, Jonah Hill, Bill Hader, Martin Starr, and Jay Baruchel
• Superbad (2007) - Written by Seth Rogen, produced by Judd Apatow, starring Jonah Hill, Michael Cera, Seth Rogen, Bill Hader, and Martin Starr

• Walk Hard (2007) - Written/Produced by Judd Apatow, Starring John C. Reilly and Martin Starr, with uncredited Jack Black and Paul Rudd

• Drillbit Taylor (2008) - Produced by Judd Apatow, written by Seth Rogen, starring Owen Wilson and Danny Mcbride
• Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) - Written by Jason Segel, produced by Judd Apatow, starring Jason Segel, Jonah Hill, Bill Hader, and Paul Rudd
• Stepbrothers (2008) - Written by Will Ferrell, produced by Judd Apatow, starring Will Ferrell, John C. Reilly, and a part with Seth Rogen.

• Pineapple Express (2008) - Written by Seth Rogen/Judd Apatow (story), produced by Judd Apatow, starring Seth Rogen, James Franco, Danny Mcbride, and Bill Hader
• Tropic Thunder (2008) - Written/directed by Ben Stiller, Starring Ben Stiller, Jack Black, Jay Baruchel, Bill Hader, and Danny McBride

Aside from the names mentioned, several other actors are seen present in usually smaller parts of Apatow-related ventures. Such names include John Lo Truglio from The State, Kevin Corrigan, jack McBrayer, David Krumholtz, Carla Gallo, Craig Robinson, and (my favorite) Loudon Wainwright III.

When thinking of the comedy scene right now and all of the projects related to these guys to come, understand that it’s not just Judd Apatow, but that all of these guys are from the same family, starting from a sketch show in the early 90s that FOX scrapped after 13 episodes. And If anyone is familiar with The Ben Stiller Show, they should agree that the popularity these comic genius’ deserve is long overdue.

-ryan

Does anyone remember On the Television, that tedious Nick at Night sketch show? I don’t. But, since I love sketch comedy I decided to give it a whirl and check out what I missed.

The show’s production company went bankrupt and, for fear of having to pay the actors, the show has not been syndicated. So if you missed the 1990-1991 run you missed it for good.

My analysis of the show is that it is filled with good ideas made unwatchable by bad presentation. The style of acting (see Ryan’s post) and lack of stimulating jokes hints that the target audience was in part children (or else the actors and directors were just that bad), but the situations posed are amenable only to a more mature viewer. This wide array of target viewers doesn’t increase the shows appeal but makes it inaccessible to everyone. A child misses out on the pith of the jokes and an adult is irritated by the presentation of the jokes. Here are some examples.

The idea behind Our Maid Imelda is rife with political relevance that would be lost on a child/adolescent and thus the premise is lost on such a viewer. What kid was aware of the real Imelda’s obsession with shoes and gowns or her financial situation, much less where the Philippines are located. But, the jokes within Our Maid Imelda are presented in an over dramatic manner. And punchlines in the sketch are awkwardly bad. The expression on the actor’s face reveals when to laugh, in case you missed the joke.

The show “Carmella” is laden with sexual innuendo relevant to a more mature audience. Yet the segment itself is loud and filled with overacting, similar to the content of All That.

But, outside of the space of mock shows we do get some funny presentations like this interview bit. Although not as developed as The Daily Show, this is the precursor to that style of humor. These guys had potential.

And, in their defense, they limited themselves significantly by trying to make a sketch comedy show out of a single premise.

Of course it could all be reducible to a searing critique of period sitcoms. Note in support of this claim that the sitcoms portrayed were poorly put together and the premises of these shows were sources of humor. But, the non-sitcom aspects of the show were enjoyable and sometimes even funny. So, the message is: “Our show is good, everything else sucks, and we’re making fun of it.” If only the “making fun of it” was indeed “fun”.

It’s good to know these guys existed but torture to sit through as much as I did while researching for this post.

-zach

What makes for emotionally resonant TV?

It’s impressive when any creative work comes off as an earnest communication of something like an emotion or an ideal that is not tangible but, despite that, rings true. In linguistically muddy times, when nobody says what they mean and everybody owns stock in innuendo, finding honest representations of simple human behavior in the media ether can be difficult.

For example (as Ryan recently pointed out), there is no reason, based on his actions as portrayed in Saved by the Bell, that any thoughtful young woman would find Zack Morris anything more than a selfish, immature cad. The resilience of Zack’s reputation as a ladies man defies scandal after scandal during the entire run of the series. Even when Zack finds himself on the rocks with a first tier squeeze like Kelly (which tends to happen often) he can always rely on Bayside’s pool of fresh faced extras to satiate his needs, which they do, because he’s Zack Morris. The point is, this behavior is ridiculous, irrational and impossible to identify with on any meaningful level (I must stress that this does not make the program any less watchable). On the flip side, there are times in some series where the viewer can pinpoint an honest effort to convey situations in a way that is genuine and, sometimes, moving. A prime example is the seventh episode of Futurama’s fourth season, “Jurassic Bark,” which ends with a scene that encourages thoughtful reflection on the relationship between people and their pets. The premise of the episode is simple enough, delivered courtesy of TV.com,

Fry reads in the newspaper that archaeologists have recreated an old Pizzeria from the 20th Century. He and Bender go to see it and discover that it is in fact Panucci’s Pizza, the pizzeria Fry used to work at in 1999. Fry also discovers that the fossilized remains of his old dog Seymour are on display. Fry campaigns to get Seymour back and eventually does, and Farnsworth says he can use the cloning machine to bring Seymour back to life.

The climax of the episode comes when Fry, upon realizing that Seymour had lived to the rightful old age of fifteen, stops the cloning process and concludes that the dog most likely moved on and forgot about him after his disappearance. Although it could have been left at that, the Futurama crew instead taps into feelings familiar to pet owners and admirers to close out the show. Here is the last 75 or so seconds of the episode, a real heart-breaker, but a great riff on what it means to feel loved by a pet.

It’s not trashy sentimentalism like you would see in an episode of Full House, which is just as impossible to empathize with as Saved by the Bell. A man has never witnessed the way Danny Tanner interacts with his daughters and thought “Boy do I wish I had that kind of relationship with my kids.” Ditto with the way Danny relates to the rest of the bunch, but that is neither here nor there. However, I defy anyone with a dog to sit through that Futurama clip without imagining their own, loyal pooch, which is why it is so compelling (as a side note, the first Futurama feature, “Bender’s Big Score” retcons the Seymour situation into something less devastating but I think the point still stands).

A far less forceful example of emotionally rich television can be found in the myriad of episodes of Nickelodeon’s Doug where the protagonist experiences palpable relief upon facing an unknown. In fact, a great deal of Doug’s story-lines lean on the use of the sense of foreboding that is packed into unfamiliar situations. Hell, the whole premise of the show is built around Doug being introduced to a new town and new people because his father gets a new job.

The episode which best portrays this format is “Doug gets his ears lowered” (S1E08A), where Doug finds himself in need of a haircut but is miles away from his longtime Bloatsburg barber, Big Al Sweeny (like in many episodes of the first season, the fact that Doug is the new guy in town is ultimately the source of the conflict). After spending time attempting to navigate the stressful world of trendy hair dressers, Doug finally stumbles upon a barber who will cut his hair the way he likes it (”…normal but not dopey, neat but kinda messy…just right, but not too right”). Tension builds as Doug’s hair is cut by his prospective new barber, Big Al Sweeny’s cousin Joe, and musical emphasis is placed on moment when Doug realizes that his new haircut is just what he wanted all along, and his tension melts. It is the everyday nature of this victory which allows the viewer to empathize so deeply with Doug in this episode. Other episodes tackle similarly pedestrian fair like going to the dentist (S2E12B), eating liver and onions (S2E04A) and going to a school dance (pilot episode), just to name a few. The familiarity of all these plot devices is what lies at the heart of Doug’s appeal, simply portraying an earnest kid entering adolescence, dealing with everyday perils familiar to the youth of the day.

I suppose the overall point is that, even though the epic runs of bubblegum media like Saved by the Bell and Full House prove that it isn’t necessary to put emphasis on empathy, programs like Doug and Futurama showcase the value of investing in honesty.

-bryan

The good Americans over at Conservapedia.org have an interesting article about Professor values. The idea is that professors are evil heathen commies. To show this a few fallacies are committed, but we agree with their gist (That is, Dr. Davenport is an evil heathen commie for giving me a B in Applied Stat for Scientists and Engineers). But, the most remarkable particular offered is the last entry under the heading “Immoral, Unethical or Bizarre Behavior”:

Richard Garfield, a PhD, is responsible for creating a collectible card game (Magic: the Gathering) with questionable immoral influences.

So, Garfield is proof of a professorial plague perniciously punishing purified pixies pedaling pentacycles promisingly. And, generalizing from the particular is only illogical if you’re not an idiot, so we can’t attack the goodly reasoning there, unless we just hate alliteration (which no one does).

Although the site has been a source of entertainment for a while, as has its sister site ignorantopedia, this new tidbit was stumbled on after seeing this video.

Anyway, if Obama is the anti-Christ then I’ll vote for McCain just so these people don’t get their rapture.

-zach

Bill Nye is back. And, this time, he’s not concealing his liberal agenda.

In the past his propagandist message was hidden under the thin veil of science–like when he showed us that momentum could be transferred between two bouncing balls, one on the other. Cool we thought, balls bouncing together is okay and natural. Wrong! The Bible clearly states that balls should be restrained from bouncing with proper support (ie tighty whiteys). It is as unnatural as homosexuality for a set of balls to be bouncing in the breeze. It is Bill Nye’s sin that he tried to corrupt the minds of our youth by convincing us otherwise.

And now we have this new endeavor, this crusade to educate us about where things come from and where things go. The first episode deals with bathrooms. Apparently Mr. Nye is convinced that toilets descended from a primordial porcelain stew pot. But, Mr. Nye, what about the holes in the commode record? Mr. Nye tells us that the modern commode ascended to its present state filling a niche previously occupied by the outhouse after said house became extinct. But, there is no evidence of how the shit vessel of prehistory transformed into the elegant design in my bathroom today. It’s a leap of faith. For all his science, Mr. Nye is a charlatan committed to pushing his liberal agenda at the expense of reason.

Mr. Nye, I came from a stork, and I’ll break your knee caps if you say otherwise.

-zach

Questioning why Zack Morris was so popular with women.

It’s common to hear men complain about some women dating losers, citing various reasons for the poor choices in the dating game. From time to time there are testimonies of women to the effect of “Yeah…he’s a jerk. But what can I say?” A friend of mine refers to a reason for this phenomenon as the “Mother Theresa Complex.” The idea is that a woman keeps a guy around, regardless of understanding that he is a jerk, because she thinks that she can comfort and fix whatever problems the guy may have and that there may be something worth saving. This sense of rehabilitation is suppose to be enticing in itself to the lady, causing her to be with man who may really not be worth her time.

As compelling as such a theory may sound, it is disheartening to believe it to be true. Certainly this isn’t the case for all women. Nevertheless, it does seem true that there are guys that no matter how many transgressions they commit, there are some women, fully aware of their problems, who are still enamored with them. Though I’m sure most people can think of a personal example of , for the sake of this post, I will consider a favorite TV heartthrob: Mr. Zack Morris.

Separate him from his dashing looks, charisma, and surprising intelligence (scoring a 1502 on his SATs), you will find that Zack Morris is a prick. He’s a scheming, lying, selfish, greedy prick. He has very little respect for his friends, and rarely takes into account others’ feelings when acting. Yet, this man made it with almost every girl that graced the halls of Bayside High. What made him so desirable to women? Was he so good looking and charming that everyone could disregard his actions completely? Surely, no one is that smooth. Here’s the short list of Zack’s deviance:

1. When the Bayside gang decides to form a buddy bracelet company for a school project, driven by greed, he treats his friends poorly causing them to quit.
2. He uses subliminal messages in a music tape to make Kelly want to go to a dance with him.
3. In fear of Slater being more desirable to Kelly if he got his license before him, Zack rigs the test car and causes Slater to wreck into the lockers, causing one of them to fall on Kelly’s leg.
4. He jeopardizes his and Kelly’s relationship to date the school nurse (I have no idea…).
5. Later when Kelly starts seeing Jeff from The Max, Zack sets up a date structured to deliberately make Kelly jealous.
6. He lies to the overweight girl who won him at the date-auction because he doesn’t want to be seen with her.
7. He finds out that Kelly is going to the prom with someone else so he sabotages it.
8. He sells the video year book clips of the female students as dating videos.
9. He jeopardizes his and Kelly’s relationship, and his and Slater’s friendship, by kissing Jesse.
10. He drives his friends home drunk, in Lisa’s mother’s car, causing an accident.

But still, after all of this, he still manages to hook up with ALL of the female main characters (Lisa included, for those who forgot. See “The Bayside Triangle”), not to mention a barrage of other side characters throughout the show. He even ends up marrying Kelly. Is it that Zack Morris is simply irresistible? Maybe. Or maybe it is that these lovely women wanted to embark on a crusade to make Zack a better man? Who knows. I’ve never been one to understand women.

-ryan

Remembering the old SNICK favorite Roundhouse.

Although it was certainly popular growing up, I wasn’t a fan of the Mickey Mouse Club (and certainly not a fan of its soap opera meta-show Emerald Cove…but that’s neither here nor there). I watched its counterpart Kids Incorporated, but aside from the episode that featured Tae-Bo sensation Billy Blanks, I was never that invested. These shows were both similar in nature: both dealt with young music talent who performed sketches and sang popular songs. Whereas MMC solely performed hit pop songs in between sketches, Kids Incorporated had original song routines and tackled issues in normal adolescent life, such as making friends, cheating on tests, etc. The dynamic, albeit laughable, was incredibly entertaining and popular for young viewers.

Despite the popularity the similar variety shows shared, they suffered from the same problem: they weren’t hip enough. This is not to say that the songs performed on the shows were not considered popular given the times. Both programs featured a variety of pop songs of artists ranging from Michael Jackson to Boys II Men. However, the actors’ performances themselves for the respective shows, although upbeat, were certainly not cool…especially for the 90s. Many of the shows’ sketches and musical performances had a Happy Days, hot apple pie ala mode with a two-cola chaser vibe, where songs were performed catering to the early 90s radio pop sound (Paula Abdul, Color Me Bad, etc.). The kids’ attire for sketches was sometimes comprised of skirts and letter jackets, but at the very least, everyone was always incredibly clean cut.

But, where is the fun in malt shop media?

It’s a good format for a kid’s variety show to incorporate pop music into the mix of cutesy sketches (in MMC’s case) and illustrated adolescent dilemmas (in Kids Incorporated‘’s case), but couldn’t there be a show that incorporated the song and dance routine with comedy and lessons in pre-teen life, all the while being hip to the developing 90s trends? Simply, yes. That is where we find Roundhouse.

Roundhouse was a show on Nickelodeon that debuted in 1992 in the original SNICK lineup. It was created by Buddy Sheffield, a writer for In Living Color, and his former wife, Rita Hester. The show was comprised of sketches and original dances and musical performances, following the problems of the Anyfamily’s. Each episode revolved around the Anyfamily’s and their problems in daily life. Plots of the episodes included being the new kid in school, going on a first date, not getting along with your family, etc. The show lasted for four years, remaining in the SNICK lineup for its entire tenure.  It was nominated for two CableACE Awards, and received the Youth Artist Award in 1993 for “Outstanding Young Ensemble Cast in a Youth Series or Variety Show.”

What set Roundhouse apart from the other programs is that it succeeded in being as close to an adult variety comedy program (SNL, In Living Color) without sacrificing the material of a kid’s show. Although it was directed at kids, it provided humor that an older audience who were more socially aware could enjoy. For instance, in the episode “New Kid in the Town”, the members of the show are pretending to be various programs while channel surfing, and when landing on what was suppose to be Wheel of Fortune, one of the actors says, “Oh, no. I’m sorry, Mr. Vice President…but there is no ‘E’ in ‘Potato.’” Although I don’t assume that all elementary school kids of the early 90s didn’t understand the context, I certainly didn’t. In any case, the show actually felt like a teen In Living Color. The dancing was great, the dialog was witty, the set design and costumes were stylish, the house band rocked, and, given the conditions of being suited for kids, it was very funny. The show included many references and spoofs on popular shows of the time (Divorce Court, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Star Trek, various infomercials, etc.).

But if anything would warrant preference over the competition it was the father’s chair. This piece of furniture included a satellite television (way impressive on its own for ‘92), a hot plate, a cooler, a built in remote, and a toilet. That’s right, a toilet. Although a satirical display of an Al Bundy-like father figure, the idea of such an invention is still mindblowing.

In sum, whenever your life gets you so down, I wouldn’t suggest donning Mickey Mouse ears or going to the P*lace to kick it with Jennifer Love Hewitt. Rather, you should go down to where the music and the fun never end. Down at the Roundhouse.

-ryan

Dennis Haskins on his ties to Charles Barkley, “Saved by the Bell 2000″ and post-Ceausescu Romania

Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is expected any day now to announce his highly anticipated selection for vice president. A million names, it seems, have made the tightly secured list, including those of Sens. Evan Bayh, Jim Webb and, of course, Hillary Clinton.

Now, imagine if Dennis Haskins, the actor who played Principal Richard Belding on the ubiquitous 1990s teen sitcom “Saved by the Bell,” were to emerge among all of the governors, senators and other big names as Obama’s veep.

This is the ridiculously random scenario I dreamed several nights ago. There they were, hand in hand in front of thousands, Obama and Haskins. Sporting a slightly mullet hairdo and appearing noticeably thinner than he is today, Haskins resembled the Mr. Belding of the earliest seasons of “Saved by the Bell.” What struck me was that Haskins was actually running on Obama’s ticket as himself, instead of the fictional persona for which he is best known.

The dream was enough of an impetus for me to dig through my old tape recordings from my days as an editor at The Commonwealth Times, Virginia Commonwealth University’s student newspaper, and dig out a recorded conversation I had with the actor in August 2006. Haskins, whose recent screen credits include a guest role as an alleged child-molesting coach on FX’s “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” squeezed in a few minutes of questions with me before he shared a trivia game full of “Saved by the Bell” anecdotes with an auditorium filled with nostalgic VCU students. Haskins in recent years has traveled the university lecture circuit, offering motivational advice and recollections about Mr. Belding, who, Haskins told the VCU crowd, was originally scripted for a black man.

I had a slew of questions to ask Haskins but managed to get in only a few. The following is a transcription of our conversation.

Q: What brought you to VCU?

A: Well, I’ve been coming to VCU for the last 10 years to be here with Charles Barkley to support VCU Athletics. My good friend Dr. Richard Sander is married to a former high-school friend of mine, Mary Sander, his wife. We went to high school together, and I knew Charles’ assistant basketball coach, Mack McCarthy, who came in when Sunny Smith was here to take over the program. That’s my connection. Mack and Charles said, “Why don’t you come up here and do this with us also?” So I came up and I started doing this, and I’ve really fallen in love with the people here and the school and the program. Of course, Sunny’s gone and Mack’s gone, and even Mack’s assistant Jeff is gone. We just met Anthony Grant, and he’s terrific. So it’s just, we come up here because the people are so nice, and I have a history with Dr. Sander and his wife and a few other people. We would like to come and support the school. We do a lot of charity events in the summer – Charles and I, not together, but I do Alice Cooper, Vince Neil and Jim Kelley, that’s who called me, was Jim Kelly – raising money for various causes around the country, from kids that are homeless to cancer research to athletics or whatever. So this is kind of our chance to take a deep breath and wind down. I hosted Charles’ event every year, and since I’m doing this at colleges all across the country, this is a chance for me do this here for the students at VCU.

Q: That leads me to my next question. When you are speaking to college or university students, do you tend to speak as yourself or Mr. Belding or a little bit of both?

[Haskins appeared visibly frustrated that I would suggest he and Mr. Belding were one and the same.]

A: Well, I am myself, and I come to this as the guy who played Mr. Belding on “Saved by the Bell.” One of the things that I’ve come to know is that a lot of schools and the people that run the schools want me to address some leadership points, but I know the audience is coming because they watched “Saved by the Bell” and grew up with it. It was an amazing run that the show had because we were the very first sitcom that was on Saturday mornings for kids; the other shows were cartoons. These kids grew up, literally grew up, with our show. They’re not kids anymore, these college students (who) grew up watching our show. So yes, I am the guy that played Mr. Belding, and yes, we will talk about “Saved by the Bell.” We’ll talk about various things about my career and about “Saved by the Bell,” and then I’ll have a trivia contest, and we will have fun doing “Saved by the Bell” stuff. But I’m not here acting like Mr. Belding. I’m Dennis Haskins talking about what I did when I played Mr. Belding. I give long answers to short questions; have you noticed? [Laughs]

Q: You played Mr. Belding for 12 years –

A: Actually, 11. Well, I played Mr. Belding on “Good Morning, Miss Bliss,” which was in 1988, and then they bought the rights to 3, 4, of the characters, including Mr. Belding, and created “Saved by the Bell” in 1989. So 1989 through 1998, I did the job. The show ran 1989 through 2000, so whatever that adds up from the original class to all the different incarnations of the new class. I went through 10 different cast changes. But I was there from start to finish.

Q: Since you played him so long, did playing the character ever feel like a 9-5 type of job?

A: Listen, I love to act, and the opportunity to act everyday was a blessing. The fact that I got to do it on a show that I liked to do was fun as well. The job is not always easy. I mean, acting is a job. You get paid; there’s a lot of money at stake. It cost $400,000-plus to do our episodes. That’s relatively cheap compared to prime time, which is a million and a half to two million, but it’s still a lot of money at risk. The original cast and I were in the business to be actors, and we all got this job together and created a show that became very successful. “The New Class” kids that came in originally were kind of excited about being on “Saved by the Bell,” you know, and they were younger and less experienced. But they hit a show that was already running at full speed. So little by little they would replace people that they thought could have done a little better – maybe they didn’t cast them properly, maybe it was their fault, you know, the producers’ fault – but eventually we ended up with some “New Class” kids that were really good.

Q: When “The New Class” did end in 2000, what was your reaction?

A: Well, actually, they had come to me and said, “We’re thinking about doing another version.” They were thinking about doing “Saved by the Bell 2000.” And I said, “You know what, I really think I’ve done all I can do with this character.” We’ve had 3,000 proms and dances and, you know – I mean, of course, not really, not literally 3,000. We had done a lot of different situations, from proms and dances to different things that happened to different people, and I thought we had kind of run out of story ideas as far as Mr. Belding and Screech were concerned, for sure. If I ever wanted to do anything different than Mr. Belding, I better start moving on and try to do other stuff because you can get stereotyped. By the way, stereotyping is not a bad thing. Stereotyping happens because people like the character you played, and they watched it for so long they identify you with that, and that means you were successful. Then you have to create other things that become as successful in order to balance out that stereotyping. That’s what I’m in the business of doing now.

Q: This is sort of a hypothetical question. If “Saved by the Bell 2000” had gone on, where would Mr. Belding be? Would he be a superintendent? Would he have retired?

A: That’s a good question. I never thought about that. Well, as a matter of fact, the last episode of “Saved by the Bell: The New Class,” which you probably didn’t watch, they did do a two-parter where Mr. Belding accepted a job as dean of students at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Now that’s my alma mater in real life, so that’s where he would have gone. He left and moved on to another job, so he would not have been a part of “2000.” We only have a couple – I apologize – but we’re really tight. A couple more questions.

Q: Sure. Where do you see “Saved by the Bell” 20 years from now?

A: Well, the way it’s going, it’ll still be re-running 4, 5, times a day. It’s unbelievable. I think “Saved by the Bell” has had its place in teen culture because it was the first. I just ran into Kelly Packard, who played Tiffany on “California Dreams,” last weekend. Their show was really good, but it wasn’t first. Then “Hang Time” came in and “One World” and stuff like that – they’re all Saturday-morning shows. But it’s really hard when this was the first show to do better. So the fact that we were the first gives it a place in history. The show went to 87 countries around the world. I just flew last week with a kid from Kuwait, who said he grew up watching my show. I don’t know what to make of that. I mean, it’s a really nice thing to hear but it’s overwhelming to me. I mean, I’ve been to Romania, and people know me because when Ceausescu was assassinated, the first show they put on the air was “Saved by the Bell.” I mean, it’s unbelievable – because it was safe, it’s American high school, and they wanted to see that. So in a global sense it’s definitely had an impact. And it got horrible ratings at the beginning, but I’m very proud. I’ve had many people come up to me and say, “We learned to speak English watching your show.” What do you say to that besides “thank you”? It’s very cool. I’m gonna have to let you guys figure out where it fits in history because I was part of it; you’ve been watching it, and you’ll have a better perspective than me.

Q: I actually watched two episodes today.

A: You watched two episodes today? See, that’s exactly what I’m talking about! People are still watching the show. The show that would not die – and that’s OK.

Q: I understand your time is tight, so to finish up here, what advice would Mr. Belding give to VCU students?

A: Well, you know, Mr. Belding always tried to do what’s right for the kids at Bayside High School. He enjoyed being with them and hanging out with them, but when it came down to it, he tried to do what’s right for them. Dennis Haskins would say to the students at VCU, take advantage of every opportunity you have while you’re going to college. Don’t just go to college; be involved in college. There are so many opportunities here to try things that you’ll never get to try anywhere else. I’ve done a lot of USO tours and met a lot of soldiers, men and women in Afghanistan, Pakistan, places like that – there are a lot of people like that would love to trade places with you VCU students, so honor them by really doing your best here. Take chances; think outside of the box. Risk failure, because failure’s a word that really shouldn’t exist. If you try something and it doesn’t work, at least you learned it doesn’t work. And follow your dreams; if you have a dream, try it because it just might work out, and wouldn’t it be great to make a living doing what you love to do?

-tad

The smurfs are sexists, and here’s why:

Smurfette is the token female, and any digging into a defense of her unique status only unearths further insights into the seedy underbelly of Smurf gender dynamics. The subliminal themes of The Smurfs are far from benign. To prove this, I will attempt to lead the reader in an exploration of two of the most common schools of thought constructed around explaining Smurfette’s existance as the female anomaly.

School 1: Smurfette functions as the sole female in smurf society because only one female is “needed” to fufill the functional duties that keep smurf society chugging along smoothly.

Assuming that smurfs do not reproduce asexually, this would then have us posit that Smurfette, as a female and token womb, fufills the female-half of the entire society’s reproductive imperative. As no mention is made in the series of marriage-ties and monogamy, we are left to question if all smurfs have an ability to mate, or if instead there is a power hierarchy of mating that determines which smurfs have a claim to reproduce with the metaphorical queen-bee, Smurfette. Given the salient communism-invoking, egalitarian themes of the original comic and later animated Hannah Barbara series, we can only best hypothesize that smurf society would allow all members to have an equal crack at acting upon their reproductive urges. And additionally, given the verbal testaments and doe-eyed demonstrations directed toward Smurfette in the episode, The Smurfette, we know that smurfs possess feelings of adoration, desire, and “love”-associated sexual attraction. Thus, we are left to conclude that Smurfette would be the only female with whom the entire male smurf population could mate.

To note, this assumption does not preclude that homosexual relationships could exist amongst the male smurfs, because that is essentially unrelated to the query of how Smurfette, as the only female smurf in society, could single-handedly produce enough offspring to keep the population at a steady, and not numerically declining, state.The huge proportional disparity of males to female elicits important questions then of smurf reproduction, population stability, and ultimately, cultural and societal viability in the long term.

To those who would argue that Smurfette’s existence as the sole female is merely an accidental and non-pertinent idiosyncrasy of the show, I strongly disagree. A token female in a show with such a glut of discernably different and individually-identified male characters is no fluke, or at the very least, is certainly not insignificant. Along this line, noticing Smurfette’s unique status as the female anomaly, we can examine how the smurfs are differentiated and individualized according to perceived commonalities and differences, and what tools/methods/and cues are utilized to create the definitions.

Besides Smurfette, the entire smurf society is male, and in examining how others interact with Smurfette versus with each other, and how tones of sexuality exist only in the former, we can say that male-ness versus female-ness, and thus, sexual identity, is used as a grouping mechanism.

Male smurfs are identified as being male through examination of their physical appearance as well as their mannerisms and word choice when opposite Smurfette or when involved in discussing her. In terms of physical appearance, every smurf besides Smurfette wears a white ensemble consisting of a Phrygian cap and trouser set reminiscent of a sawed-off onesie, complete with footies. And in terms of their interactions with other smurfs, it is only when one smurf talks to Smurfette does the drooling, present-giving, and arrow-through-heart graffiti-ing commence. In every other situation, if one smurf wearing pants talks to another smurf wearing pants, never does panting and ogling enter the picture. Thus, Smurfette is demarcated as different, both through her wardrobe (white dress covering both upper and lower torso) as well as through the unique treatment she receives by other members in the smurf community.

Therefore, taking these considerations into account, Smurfette is set apart from the other members of smurf society due to her gender identity. In that all members of smurf society are identified as male, we can then take male-ness to be the norm. But with male-ness functioning as the veritable default setting in smurf social identity, some sort of method must be constructed to differentiate one male smurf from another. And in a fashion compatible with commune living, differentiations are made amongst smurfs according, almost exclusively, to acquired vocational skill. Greedy Smurf is the baker, while Handy Smurf is best at architecture and general fixing. Thus, identity among all male smurfs is determined by ability. And in instances where minor superficial characteristics can differentiate between one male character and another, it also stands that the two characters are additionally distinct because of their unique types of agency within society. So, not only does Hefty Smurf have a tattoo while Handy Smurf doesn’t, but Hefty is valuable in his leadership abilites while Handy is a consummate architect.

Given this, we must then ask how well Smurfette fits into this dynamic. How is Smurfette different from other smurfs, what characteristic of Smurfette is used to determine her identity and place within smurf society, how is her identified “differentness” defended, and what are the results of her perceived otherness? What is the key component that is seen to define Smurfette as an individual?

Answer: her gender. And only her gender.

While other male smurfs are recognized according to their intentionally-achieved abilities and skills, no mention of Smurfette’s unique skill set is ever made in the series. We are to take Smurfette as a flat character, devoid of ability, aptitude, and any desire to achieve a degree of personal enrichment through pursuit of a career-path, and we are thus left to conclude that in the eyes of the series writers and in greater smurf society, Smurfette’s only role is that of walking womb and objectified, one dimensional sex target.

Or…

School 2: Smurfette is the only female character because she is to be viewed as representational of all female smurfs.

If we take this theory to be explanatory of Smurfettes’s sole female status among a sea of male smurfs, then we find that we have delved into another andro-centric dilemma. If the portrayal of one female smurf is believed to be sufficient in a cartoon that provides a host of male characters, and Smurfette is supposed to be a collective representation of pertinent and valuable female characteristics, then this is at the outset undeniably sexist. This rationale supposes that all potential female smurfs, and perhaps all females in general, are summararily equivalent, and that any character differences between individuals is paltry and can be easily ignored due to the fact that they are all, at basis, just something that is not male. All acquired skills and ambitions, despite the earnestness with which they are felt and undertaken, simply do not have as much weight as gender identity, which is, fundamentally, a characteristic over which an individual has no original choice and agency. In ignoring the innate desires of individuals to forge self-identity dependent on conscious choice, to dismiss all actions towards this end and instead use gender as the ultimate yardstick by which to measure worth, is nothing if not dehumanizing, or in this instance, desmurfifying.

And distressingly enough, there is more than enough evidence to support the series’ andro-centric gender bias that dictates that there is only one type of female.

In the episode, The Smurfette, we find that Gargomel and Azrael have hatched a plan to create a evil smurfette to infiltrate Smurf Village and lure the unsuspecting smurfs right into the evil duo’s clutches. While I won’t dive into specifics, I would like to note the sexist bias already informing the episode- the notion that females can be created and controlled at the whim of greater and more powerful male figures. Bleech. But, continuing on, once the evil female smurf is created and is accepted into the greater smurf society, there is an interesting occurrence to note, and some important threads of thought to tease out.

First, this smurfette only answers to the name, Smurfette. While each male character has a distinct name- Brainy, Clumsy, Hefty, Vanity, Grouchy, Harmony, etc. – this female smurf that we encounter is only identified as Smurfette, a moniker intrinsically derivative of the pre-existing defaulted masculine term “smurf.” This speaks volumes about the depersonalization and related objectification of females within smurf society.

In illustrating how male identity is valued over female identity in smurf society, I would like to elucidate the commodification and utilization of male gender identity as an empowerment mechanism and therein, as demonstrative of the ingrained andro-centric gender bias existent in smurf cultural norms and mores.After having been tricked into delivering the smurfs unto Gargomel, evil-turned-reformed Smurfette devises a plan to free her trapped brethren. She throws her voice down an octave, dons a mask and associated super-hero pantsuit, and tricks Gargomel and Azrael while she simultaneously evades them and throws the latch on the crate holding the other smurfs. While shimmying up a tree in hot pursuit of the disguised Smurfette, who announces herself to be The Lone Smurf, it is clear that her pursuers think that she is in fact, a he. Gargomel shouts “that smurf cant climb much farther, he’s almost out of tree!” Thus, by temporarily owning and utilizing the guise of a male identity, Smurfette is able to gain recognition and agency enough in respect to those around her to undertake responsibility and definitive action, and become an individual who is distinct because of his/her actions instead of different and ineffectual because of her pre-determined gender.

And in touching once more upon the aforementioned peculiarities of smurf semantics, two futher points are worthy of mention. The first being the undertones of sexual insinuation created by the ambiguity and interchageability of the word smurf and its lexical derivatives as a progressively productive term. As it relates to Smurfette and associated gender bias, sexual objectification, and identity constructs, “smurf” as a productive term shapes much of the framework by which we understand these complicated dynamics. “Smurf” and its derivatives function in myriad forms as nouns, adjectives, and verbs. You can be a smurf. You can have a smurfin’ good time. And you can really smurf someone good. Given the smorgasbord of meaning that this word can imbue, when Smurfette is surrounded by a gaggle of mooning and salivating admirers and Greedy Smurf says “ I smurfed her first,“ how should/can we really interpret this? In that “smurf” can mean so many things, it should not be dismissed, that given the context of the situation, a definite sexual undercurrent, if not an overt slap-in-the-face sexual current can be detected.

Also, in terms of self-constructed identity, many questions can be raised by Smurfette’s admission that “I know I finally look like a smurfette, Papa Smurf, but I sure don’t feel like one.” In that we know that Smurfette answers to the name “Smurfette” as if it were a distinct and personally-identified name, we initially assume that “smurfette” functions like any other individualized female name, equivalent to Nancy, or Karen, or Abby. However, when we are confroned by Smurfette’s statement that she doesn’t feels like a smurfette, our original conception of the name as something unique to the entity that is that one individual, Smurfette, does not jive with this new use of “smurfette” that indicates an adjectival, group-oriented meaning. Smurfette’s use of “smurfette” in this scenario, is interchangeable with the term “woman” or “female.” Given this, we are then left to re-analyze all of the previous cases in which we heard the word “smurfette” used. When we thought it was merely her individual name being used, we didn’t bat an eyelash, but if you go back and substitute every instance that you hear “smurfette” with “woman,” the series paints itself quiet a different, and quite a misogynistic, picture.

In sum, smurf the smurfs. They’re smurfing sexist.

But don’t take my word for it:

The Smurfette, part 1

The Smurfette, part 2

The Smurfette, part 3

The Smurfette, part 4

- zoe