Living & Arts

Bad cancellation decisions, part 1: Apatow’s revenge

In print | January 29, 2009

As a Swarthmore student, I realize that winter break is supposed to be a time of rest and relaxation. After suffering through the protracted waterboarding session that was finals week — a torturous time that was made even worse by the fact that two of my quadmates finished four days early, leaving me to pine for their freedom while writing my third paper — I wanted nothing more than to go home and eat chocolate all day.

But, dear readers, I love you too much for that. Instead of allowing my brain to melt out of my ears and into an empty Reese’s bag, I put my own welfare aside and sacrificed break to watching both “Freaks and Geeks” and “Arrested Development” in their entirety (well, except for the part where I was lying on the beach in Hawaii, but that was more about self-preservation; I had to keep an eye on the seals who had chosen to share the beach with me so as to ensure that none of them would attempt to bite off my hand, so I couldn’t really focus on television).

Unfortunately for fans of both shows, neither series took a particularly heinous amount of time to get through; though they were critically adored Emmy winners, both were cancelled for lack of viewers. “Arrested” lasted for two and half seasons, while “Freaks and Geeks” made it through only one before getting the axe. Both shows, however, have had their revenge; Judd Apatow, the creator of “Freaks,” is now the king of Hollywood comedy, while “Arrested” not only launched the career of adorkable hipster Michael Cera but has also become a pop-cultural touchstone, as anyone who understood the seal reference in the last paragraph can attest.

I’ll address “Arrested” soon enough, but first I want to discuss the ubiquitous Mr. Apatow and his peculiar brand of family-friendly raunch. Yes, I just said family-friendly, which may shock anyone who has seen an Apatow film, with its unrelentingly profane dialogue and endless sexually explicit scenes. However, think about it for just a little longer and you’ll see my point. Ponder the ultimate messages of “The 40-Year-Old Virgin,” “Knocked Up” and “Superbad” — which are, waiting to have sex, forming a supportive family structure and staying close to your friends, respectively — and it becomes clear that, underneath the jokes about menstrual blood, Apatow’s films affirm a surprisingly traditional value set.

Those who have seen “Freaks and Geeks” could have seen this coming. Because “Freaks” appeared on network television, it didn’t have the same filth quotient as any of the aforementioned films, which just made the family-values messages shine through all the clearer. While the show provided an accurate portrait of the high-school horror, it didn’t have the same kind of biting satiric edge that characterizes, say, “Mean Girls,” because Apatow softens his characters to the point where that edge is lost.

Nowhere is this tendency more pronounced than in the case of resident McKinley High mean girl Kim Kelly. Unlike Regina George of “Mean Girls,” Kim is presented as a misunderstood girl who acts out because her home life is a complete mess. The attempt to round out her character is nice, but forgiving her actions so completely is something of a cop-out on the part of the show’s writers. The message that comes across is that people who have a stable home are kind and functional, and that people who don’t have that stability can be excused for their actions. It’s a lovely enough thought, but it just doesn’t ring true to me. This can probably be attributed to my witnessing firsthand that people who have stable households can be just as horrible as those whose parents neglect them. I also have a very strong conviction (also due to experience) that having a fucked-up family is no excuse for being a bitch.

Despite my problems with some of Apatow’s oversimplifications, however, I really enjoy “Freaks and Geeks.” Not in the same way that I adore the zany, subversive lunacy of “Arrested Development” (which I will discuss in much more detail in my next column), but I can see why it has built up such a cult fanbase over the years. “Freaks” is appealing in its own honest-yet-optimistic way, and the cast are realistic as high school students of the non-“Gossip Girl” variety, in that they actually look and dress like real people. Well, except Franco, who is spectacularly beautiful . Franco’s pretty but empty-headed loser is, to me at least, the most charming, likeable character on the show (and not just because he’s pretty); it’s really a shame that “Freaks” was cancelled before a promising storyline about Franco’s family had time to develop.

Alex is a sophomore. She can be reached at aisrael1@swarthmore.edu.