HOUSE, M.D.: 26. "TB or Not TB"
Micky DuPree
extensive remodeling on the main floor lobby set, cafeteria set, and
fourth-floor hallways, not to mention filming the balcony from the
outside. Unfortunately, they've remodeled the characters as well.
One note of respect: They took on Big Pharma again and threw in
international health policy for good measure. But they did Big Pharma
last season, and _ER_ did the sub-Saharan medicine thing better. (To be
fair, _ER_ has the budget to shoot in Hawaii to simulate the Congo,
whereas _House_ doesn't, but they also went into more depth and detail,
at least implying a lot more complexity to the problems faced.) I'd be
more impressed if they took on some other resistant problem, like the
protective conspiracy of silence that surrounds incompetent doctors.
(Yes, I've been watching BBC America's _Bodies_. Good show.)
HOUSE: Patients aren't usually part of the diagnostic process.
CHARLES: Well, I'm a doctor.
Even so. It was unprofessional for Charles to expect to waltz into
someone else's office and cut himself in on the action when he wasn't
his own patient. The only reason I could see why House didn't just tell
him to leave was that the writers wanted them to clash some more. I
could easily see House doing the same thing in Charles' place, though.
(In fact, the self-injection and heart attack diagnosis in "Three
Stories" were proof of that.)
FOREMAN: Talk to Chase. He's rich.
CHASE: My dad, not me.
Chase used to acknowledge being rich, not equivocate or duck the
designation.
Evidently Chase Sr. is doing better with his cancer than the original
prognosis of three months to live would have indicated, and father and
son were on good enough terms even during their estrangement that Chase
Jr. accepted a generous allowance from his disappointing dad. Actually,
I smell yet another retcon, but what the hell, at least it's not baldly
contradictory.
My first suspicion was that Charles' body powder was involved in his
problems. I'll give them this much credit though: it hasn't been that
obvious since the nuns' herbal tea in "Damned If You Do." That was a
much better episode, though.
House used to have reasons for hating people. Nowadays it just looks
like an empty bad habit.
Did anyone not guess that House paged all the fellows just to get them
to ditch the patient?
HOUSE: The nameless poor have a face, and it's a pompous white
man.
I could have bought House's vituperation of Charles more easily if he
had come up with a concrete criticism that wasn't demonstrably wrong.
Even if House had managed to prove that Charles was patronizing the
people he was saving, no one refuted the fact that he was saving them
(and House himself is a past master at patronizing the people he saves),
nor the fact that there weren't exactly legions waiting in the wings to
do Charles' work if he were to walk away from it. If Charles were to
withdraw his "pompous white" face from the media, would House expect
those photos of sick Africans that Charles kept shoving in people's
faces to suddenly get more or less attention once he was gone?
HOUSE: Nobel invented dynamite. I won't accept his blood money.
Wilson should have quipped, "So when are you giving your Corvette back
to the Mafia?"
Foreman still takes bets from House? I don't understand how such
supposedly bright people can have no learning curve at all.
HOUSE: There's an evolutionary imperative why we give a crap
about our family and friends. There's an evolutionary
imperative why we don't give a crap about anybody else.
If we loved all people indiscriminately, we couldn't
function.
FOREMAN: Mm. So the great humanitarian's just as selfish as the
rest of us.
HOUSE: Just not as honest about it.
House and Foreman were both there when House practically trampled all
the ties he cared about -- his job, his friend's job, his proteges' jobs
-- to denounce Vogler's drug and fraudulent patenting practices on
behalf of anonymous sick people he'd never even meet. So why wasn't
Foreman calling bullshit here? Or was this a new "Wouldn't it be cool"
version of House, one that doesn't have a sense of a greater good after
all? One that didn't berate Wilson for placing loyalty to a friend
above ethical duty to a stranger in "Control"?
I didn't see anything to mark out Charles as questionable until he put
the romantic moves on Cameron knowing full well that he was trying to
pull her into a professionally unethical situation, and even then, being
unprofessional about one's personal life doesn't necessarily mean that
one is a fraud about one's work. I kept waiting for someone, anyone, to
ask House what would be a better use of Charles' time and abilities than
what he was already doing. I couldn't say that I took to Charles'
personality, but House himself is Exhibit A as to how one doesn't have
to be personally charming in order to be doing serious work. Actually,
I did used to like House most of the time and even admired him on
occasion. Now about the most I can do is respect his professional
skill.
CHASE: The guy's just a selfish jerk.
Where on earth did this come from? Even if Charles wasn't an altruist,
how was he profiting at other people's expense? Was this supposed to be
genuine proof that Chase is nothing more than House's suck-up?
A patient with as much attitude as the breast-lump patient had is going
to have a regular PCP and a regular gynecologist. That type doesn't go
to walk-in clinics.
So Cuddy is just going to continue to be played for a fool while House
gets his underlings to do his clinic duty for him? I guess this is the
new "Wouldn't it be cool" version of Cuddy who didn't win a protracted
contest of wills with House over clinic duty last season. None of this
makes any practical sense either unless there's been a nurse colluding
with House to fake the clinic log, but as recently as "Autopsy," there
was a nurse refusing to let House skip out early on clinic duty. Why
doesn't Cuddy know about this behavior?
I really did not get why Foreman considered only two options in the
breast-lump case and offered only those two options: dismissal after
palpation vs. biopsy. Every doctor I've ever had would have done at
least an ultrasound and maybe a mammogram first before doing a biopsy.
CAMERON: Who knows, maybe he'll just get better.
HOUSE: You'd like that, wouldn't you?
And House wouldn't? The guy for whom patient care used to come first?
The only patient whose welfare we've previously seen House get
conflicted over was his ex-girlfriend's husband. Are we really expected
to think that House is so emotionally bound up in this stranger that
he'd be happier if the guy didn't simply get better?
WILSON: You see hypocrites every day. Why is this guy so
special?
HOUSE: You think I have a hypocritical attitude to hypocrisy?
The accurate word would be 'inconsistent.' (All hypocrisy is
inconsistent, but not all inconsistency is hypocrisy.) Treating
different hypocrites differently would merely be inconsistent. House
would have to not practice what he preached in order to be a hypocrite
(which is a separate issue). That was the second time they made the
previously articulate genius House misuse the word 'hypocrisy' this
season (and as with Foreman in "Acceptance," Wilson should have been
bright enough to call House on it). Wilson's question was actually a
good one. Unfortunately, there was no satisfying answer to it.
HOUSE: He treats thousands of patients with one diagnosis. He knows
the answer going in. It's cheating.
Even if House didn't respect the guy as a doctor, this was a specious
argument for attacking him on other grounds. House knows full well that
diagnostics isn't the only way to practice medicine. He's never been
represented as disgruntled with the medical division of labor before.
House doesn't want to take on *all* the specialists' jobs himself, nor
does he particularly want all the other doctors to start doing his job.
It's not like Charles was poaching cases away from House or from other
more qualified doctors (well, except maybe for his own case, but doctors
are like that). The one thing that everyone in the episode seemed to be
able to agree on was that there's no shortage of sick people. House
himself implied that he recognized that it's not humanly possible for
one person to minister to the entire human race indiscriminately. What
skin is it off House's nose if some guy with limited medical skills but
good media savvy picks a severely undertreated disease that he can
handle and goes somewhere the developed world doesn't care about to do
the best he can with the resources he can muster? Isn't that an
optimized use of his talents? In fact, that's exactly what House has
previously seen as the purpose of lesser doctors (though on the smaller
scale of the clinic): they're there to handle the easily diagnosed cases
that House finds boring. House's entire running antagonism towards this
guy just didn't gel. I could have understood if House had been merely
professionally dismissive of Charles, but House took his dislike to a
level of moral indignation that didn't have any prior grounding. I
really miss the old version of House, who, even when I didn't agree with
him, could at least reason his way out of a wet paper bag to make his
argument.
House as a petty thief. I can't think of anything offhand to directly
contradict it, but it still smelled suspiciously of "Wouldn't it be
cool."
When Charles adopted the opinion that he'd be more valuable to his cause
dying of tuberculosis than he would be if he took his pills, I honestly
thought House was going to add psych symptoms to the whiteboard, because
the American news media really don't give much of a shit. Sure, sure,
the media are always mobbing the folks at Doctors without Borders in
real life. They can't get enough of sub-Saharan epidemics. Crazy how
that's always dominating the headlines, pushing the repetitive terror
alerts off the front page, taking up space that could be devoted to
individual cases of missing white people with no progress to report.
Actually, if the characters were real people, I'd be putting
"personality changes" down on the whiteboard for most of them.
Time stamp on House's desk phone:
01 53 09/07/05
Perhaps 9/7/05 was when the ep. was filmed?
I guess since Cameron once talked herself into dating her boss, she
could also talk herself into dating a patient once he looked terminal.
Ugh. Why did that have to be the most consistent point of character
continuity in the episode?
I couldn't believe that Cameron didn't just switch the thermostat back
to normal as soon as House left Charles' room. The only reason why she
didn't was that the writers needed a way for House to test Charles'
ability to sweat, and just coming right out and saying so would have
spoiled the not quite so clever surprise.
HOUSE: If TB caused cardiac arrest on a hot day, your work in
Africa would be even more futile than it already is.
So House managed to jump from thinking that Charles was hypocritical to
thinking that his work of saving lives was futile. That was an enormous
leap, not only in magnitude of moral significance, but also from one
train of thinking to another, and yet the writers didn't feel compelled
to show their work. This was incongruous for a character who risked his
career to get a bulimic patient a heart transplant, and who poured tons
of resources into giving a single nine-year-old one more year of painful
life.
On Charles' patient bracelet:
Charles, Sebastian
DOB: 10-13-63
Foreman, Cameron, and Chase all wrote on the whiteboard without
incident.
The calcium test was the first time I can remember seeing one of those
mysterious blue badges on House.
HOUSE: We are who people think we are. People think he's a
great doctor, so they give him stuff.
CAMERON: He is a great doctor.
HOUSE: The reality is irrelevant.
Yeah, right. House thinks there's nothing more to people than what
other people think of them. Shouldn't the reality be the relevant part?
Isn't that what separates those who are hypocrites from those who
aren't? I can't believe House wouldn't think that making the
distinction is important. He's been reduced to babbling nonsense and
none of the other characters call him on it. They just lump it all
under misanthropy.
The only thing I really liked about the episode was House's
demonstration of getting away with feigned clumsiness because of being a
cripple. However, the explanation beforehand didn't prove anything
particularly insightful nor did it prove House's superiority to others,
since House has reacted to people based on preconceived notions as well
and has sometimes had to be disabused of them through experience. In
the pilot, House didn't trust an HMO lab's results because it was an
HMO. When his team redid the labs, he trusted them. For the exact same
reason of past performance, why shouldn't Cuddy believe a patient's
complaint about House's bedside manner sooner than she'd believe a
patient's complaint about Foreman's bedside manner? She was just
playing the percentages, something that House himself does all the time,
including this case, in which he shared Cuddy's automatic assumption
that if the doctor in question was Foreman, the patient's complaint
couldn't possibly be justified. Except that in Dr. Charles' case, House
had no previous experience of the man from which to form an opinion.
HOUSE: It's not about the kids dying every eight seconds. It's
about the media stroking: adulation, pats on the head.
In my experience, while I might not be personally attracted to people who
are comfortable in the limelight, nevertheless, it is just such people who
seem best able and best suited for the long haul in endeavors where the
biggest positive difference is made by marketing good causes to those who
have resources but don't share an altruistic urge. John Lennon once said
that we needed to sell peace as effectively as we sell soap. At least
judging from the pragmatic results, the same goes for other good causes.
Shouldn't the people who don't want to be the salesmen be glad that there
are others out there who do, or who at least don't mind?
Derisive at first of a media-courting politician in "Role Model," House
capitulated to his sincere goodwill before the end. What about House
was supposed to have changed since then? (Apart from a lack of supra-
authorial continuity in the scripts?) Why didn't House similarly accept
this similarly cheerful fighter for a similarly supposed lost cause in
"TB or Not TB"? Why didn't any of the other characters, notably Wilson,
ask House that very question? If I could feel that the writers were
perfectly aware that they've been writing changes, I could look on the
changes as developments (however peculiar or clumsy) rather than as
slipshod oversights. But if the other characters are written as
oblivious to changes that they've been present for, then I have to
suspect a systemic, extra-textual problem.
HOUSE: Listen, I saved his life. That means I get credit for
every life he saves from here on out.
WILSON: I'll make sure Stockholm knows.
Hey, "Wouldn't it be cool" if House was jealous of the attention Charles
got, and if House's prior utter indifference to praise has been just an
act all along?
And the second-season pacing continued to rush along, with no time for
contemplative scenes this episode, so even serious issues were treated
breezily again. I'm not sure what the point of this episode was
supposed to be. That House isn't a fascinatingly complex character with
some flaws like I used to think he was? That there's nothing more to
him than an annoying character with some practical medical skills after
all? Because that's what they gave us. I was reminded more of the _Mad
TV_ parody of _House_ than I was of the _House_ of old. The characters
have turned into caricatures, easily summed up by surface
simplifications. This was quite a comedown from David Foster's first
scriptwriting effort, "DNR," and I didn't even find any consolation in
Hugh Laurie's formerly astonishing performance, which, particularly in
this episode, was relentlessly petty, obnoxious, and unnuanced instead.
This is not compelling television.
In case you weren't counting at home, I think this was the first episode
in which House was not shown taking a single Vicodin. Maybe there have
been notes from the network after all. Or maybe it's the network that's
been getting the notes.
House's hair just gets trendily shorter all the time, and they even seem
to be soft-pedaling the stubble a bit. He's prettier, gratuitously
nastier, inexplicably stupider, and the ratings go up. I guess I'm not
the target audience.
mary
MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
<snip for brevity, but I agree with what I snipped>
>
> And the second-season pacing continued to rush along, with no time for
> contemplative scenes this episode, so even serious issues were treated
> breezily again. I'm not sure what the point of this episode was
> supposed to be. That House isn't a fascinatingly complex character with
> some flaws like I used to think he was? That there's nothing more to
> him than an annoying character with some practical medical skills after
> all? Because that's what they gave us. I was reminded more of the _Mad
> TV_ parody of _House_ than I was of the _House_ of old. The characters
> have turned into caricatures, easily summed up by surface
> simplifications. This was quite a comedown from David Foster's first
> scriptwriting effort, "DNR," and I didn't even find any consolation in
> Hugh Laurie's formerly astonishing performance, which, particularly in
> this episode, was relentlessly petty, obnoxious, and unnuanced instead.
>
>
> This is not compelling television.
>
>
> In case you weren't counting at home, I think this was the first episode
> in which House was not shown taking a single Vicodin. Maybe there have
> been notes from the network after all. Or maybe it's the network that's
> been getting the notes.
>
>
> House's hair just gets trendily shorter all the time, and they even seem
> to be soft-pedaling the stubble a bit. He's prettier, gratuitously
> nastier, inexplicably stupider, and the ratings go up. I guess I'm not
> the target audience.
I agree. I have been disappointed in the second season. The character
of House, with his intelligence, his demons, his complexity, his flaws,
and his grudging humanity was what was so compelling. Hugh Laurie
played it well - and thoughtfully - in the first season.
Now he is flip for no reason, mean for no reason, and stupid for no
reason. The "old" House always had reasons. And Hugh Laurie seems to
be phoning it in.
Barry Margolin
MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
> WILSON: You see hypocrites every day. Why is this guy so
> special?
> HOUSE: You think I have a hypocritical attitude to hypocrisy?
>
> The accurate word would be 'inconsistent.' (All hypocrisy is
> inconsistent, but not all inconsistency is hypocrisy.) Treating
> different hypocrites differently would merely be inconsistent.
I think he was just trying to make a cute play on words, it's not
intended to be analyzed literally.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
Alan Pollock
I'm an optimist. I see this last ep as the transition between the one before -
which was awful and worse - and the next one that will have our old cranky
House back along with agendaless plots bereft of (cheap) starry eyes.
But there are inauspicious signs so I may be wrong. Take for instance Jennifer
Morrison. She's gone from sporting a simple look not at all glamorous - which
was her hook - to some ditzy room mate in a sitcom: all glamor and no
substance. I swear I wouldn't recognise her now if she sat across from me in a
subway car because she's just another bland wannabe.
It's how the show's gone too, like someone took sandpaper to it. From unique
to mainstream. From impressive to impressionable (by all the wrong
influences). From strong, simple and centered to fluid, confused and gullible.
Has the show been got to?
One word: Boomtown. Nex
Lee@DVDDebate
MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>This was a pretty good episode
>[snip]
You think too much.
Lee.
--
lee at w2designs dot co dot uk
If I have one flaw, it's that I'm a perfectoinist.
trotsky
Completely disagree. "House" probably has jumped the shark at this
point, but not because of Laurie. He's just playing what's in the
scripts, and what's in the scripts is no longer House as a morose,
sardonic individual but rather as a clown. Having been on one of the
funniest shows in the history of TV, "Black Adder", Laurie certainly
knows how to be funny, but "House" was never supposed to be a comedy.
Ian J. Ball
"Lee@DVDDebate" <l...@nospamw2designs.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 01:36:19 +0000 (UTC),
> MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>
> >This was a pretty good episode
> >[snip]
>
> You think too much.
Meanwhile, you can't go away fast enough.
--
"Read less. More TV." - Dr. Greg House, "House"
http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/TV-Blog/
Mike S.
I watched this one out of the corner of my eye as my wife sat glued to the
screen. A couple of apparent medical incongruities struck me regarding TB:
Isolation- there's this scene where the other docs suddenly back away from
the table when they hear TB, but ... why wasn't Cuddy locked in an
isolation room for the rest of the episode?
Drugs- at one point Cuddy examines a bunch of pills on the tray-table in
front of him and starts reeling off names. I heard "Streptomycin" among
them. Which tablet was the streptomycin supposed to be? (HINT: There is
no oral form of streptomycin, it has to be injected).
macr...@excite.com
House's most popular tics, throw them in the episode, and follow all
the steps from A to Z.
The basic plot for every show is:
Person gets sick
Nobody knows what's wrong
House makes a few jokes, brushes off the situation, prescribes medicine
Person gets sicker
House and co toss around ideas, more flip comments are made, and then
they try something else.
Person gets better
Then an hour later person goes into convulsions
House and co diagnose person, and they must choose between doing two
different things--Oh yeah, and if they screw up the patient dies.
They save the person.
Thoughtful comments by the staff and multiple House close ups.
END
They really need to start experimenting again. Late last season, they
started focusing more on House the character, not just House the
detective Doctor.
Terry McNeal
MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>This is not compelling television.
It's getting to be like _Buffy_ and _Angel_ during their decline. It's
not even fun to throw rocks anymore.
Terry
trotsky
Except that's the whole premise for the show. If you're not interested
in the medicine involved you're not the target audience.
dre...@yahoo.com
>Except that's the whole premise for the show. If you're not interested
>in the medicine involved you're not the target audience.
It still doesn't have to imitate that horrible CSI style.
ottomatic
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:PGHaf.516361$_o.127856@attbi_s71...
exactly, L&O is at 16 years and counting doing essentially the same
storyline
Otto
>
dre...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>exactly, L&O is at 16 years and counting doing essentially the same
>storyline
>
And sinking fast.
trotsky
What is "that horrible CSI style"?
trotsky
Good point--when L&O tried to make it about the characters when they
killed off Jill Hennessy's character I stopped watching.
trotsky
chicagofan
>
>>MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>>> I guess I'm not the target audience.
>>
>>
>> I agree. I have been disappointed in the second season. The
>> character of House, with his intelligence, his demons, his complexity,
>> his flaws, and his grudging humanity was what was so compelling. Hugh
>> Laurie played it well - and thoughtfully - in the first season.
>> Now he is flip for no reason, mean for no reason, and stupid for no
>> reason. The "old" House always had reasons. And Hugh Laurie seems to
>> be phoning it in.
I'm not sure about him phoning it in... but, I didn't like this last
episode. I think my biggest quarrel is with the writing, for all the
reasons you mentioned.
Although I'm not as critical of the whole season so far, I hope this week's
version of House gets a rest.
bj
Erin Woodbridge's Bestest Friend, Ian J. Ball
chicagofan <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
Anyone check who wrote it? Maybe it was a new writer?
--
"I did *NOT* have sex with Gil Kurvers!" - Erin Woodbridge
(on numerous occasions), "Edgemont"
David Johnston
Magic school bus cam.
William December Starr
<ijball***SPAM-No***-24C185.094...@news-lb-01.socal.rr.com>,
"Erin Woodbridge's Bestest Friend, Ian J. Ball"
<ijball***SPAM-No***@mac.com.invalid> said:
>> I'm not sure about him phoning it in... but, I didn't like this
>> last episode. I think my biggest quarrel is with the writing,
>> for all the reasons you mentioned.
>>
>> Although I'm not as critical of the whole season so far, I hope
>> this week's version of House gets a rest.
>
> Anyone check who wrote it? Maybe it was a new writer?
tv.com says David Foster, and the IMDb's "House" data says:
David Foster writer (episode 1.09 "DNR") (episode 1.15 "Mob
Rules")
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
dre...@yahoo.com
> Having been on one of the
>funniest shows in the history of TV, "Black Adder", Laurie certainly
>knows how to be funny, but "House" was never supposed to be a comedy.
That's debatable.
I'm still waiting for a Stephen Fry guest episode.
Adrian Tullberg
<dre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2mstm1h0nfrc2jidv...@4ax.com...
trotsky
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 11:19:19 GMT, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Having been on one of the
>>funniest shows in the history of TV, "Black Adder", Laurie certainly
>>knows how to be funny, but "House" was never supposed to be a comedy.
>
>
> That's debatable.
Which part of the statement are you referring to?
> I'm still waiting for a Stephen Fry guest episode.
>
>
OK.
dre...@yahoo.com
>>> Having been on one of the
>>>funniest shows in the history of TV, "Black Adder", Laurie certainly
>>>knows how to be funny, but "House" was never supposed to be a comedy.
>>
>>
>> That's debatable.
>
>
>Which part of the statement are you referring to?
The last.
Van Bagnol
macr...@excite.com wrote:
And to think a few months back there was a thread debating whether
_House_ followed a formula.
Van
--
Van Bagnol / n p c o m p l e t e at bagnol dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
...enjoys Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
...feels "parang lumalakad ako soo loob ng panaginip"
...thinks "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"
Micky DuPree
: In article <dkbpij$9e7$1...@pcls4.std.com>,
: MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
They used to be able to make cute plays on words that made sense. I
don't think any of the second season is intended to be analyzed.
Nevertheless, I'd be willing to cut them a lot more slack on the second
instance of 'hypocrisy' if they hadn't botched the first instance in the
middle of House delivering a superior rebuke to Foreman. They don't
know what the word means. I miss the House that was classically
educated.
-Micky
trotsky
I didn't then. It does now. The problem is they are afraid to let
anyone die on the show. People seem to forget the episode where one
baby lived and one baby died in the first season. They killed a baby,
for Christ's sake--that takes balls.
trotsky
What are the other kinds of education?
Micky DuPree
: I'm an optimist. I see this last ep as the transition between the one
: before - which was awful and worse - and the next one that will have
: our old cranky House back along with agendaless plots bereft of
: (cheap) starry eyes.
A friend of mine has a theory that TV shows get only one chance to be
really good. Either they start out with all the right elements in place
and something goes out of kilter later, or else they start off rough but
then manage to tinker with it through luck or skill to finally get it
right. But no show starts off really good, loses that, and then somehow
manages to recapture old glory later. I hate to be quite so cynical as
to say it's outright impossible to do so, but on the other hand, I can't
think of a single example to disprove her. Sometimes a formerly
brilliant series will manage to reclaim a bare adequacy, or else veer in
a radically different direction that almost makes it a different series,
but I've never seen the people doing a series start off with a great
production, then make bad mistakes, and then realize their mistakes and
correct them. On the other hand, I've seen numerous series stumble
badly and never substantially recover.
The people doing _House_ have all the signs of being completely
unconscious that there's anything the least bit wrong. Writer Matt
Witten claims that every script still goes through David Shore
<http://www.poststar.com/story.asp?storyid=1960>. I'm at a loss for
explaining the differences between the first and second seasons, but now
that the differences have overrun us, there's no reason for them to
abate. All I can say is that last season, someone seemed to keep an eye
on character continuity. The only times when it seriously seemed to
slip was a few instances in the pilot (which I'm willing to cut a lot of
slack for), and in the A plot to "Poison." That same attention to
character continuity is not happening this season. (I suppose I should
look in the credits to see who *isn't* in the writing staff this year.)
: But there are inauspicious signs so I may be wrong. Take for instance
: Jennifer Morrison. She's gone from sporting a simple look not at all
: glamorous - which was her hook - to some ditzy room mate in a sitcom:
: all glamor and no substance. I swear I wouldn't recognise her now if
: she sat across from me in a subway car because she's just another
: bland wannabe.
They've all been glammed up a bit from last season, at least by current
Hollywood standards (and I'd go so far as to include the sets and
lighting in that description). Morrison is just the most extreme
example. The producers have gone from thinking they were making an
intellectual Sherlock Holmes procedural in a hospital to being acutely
aware that the media talk and the fan talk seem to revolve around who's
hot.
: It's how the show's gone too, like someone took sandpaper to it. From
: unique to mainstream. From impressive to impressionable (by all the
: wrong influences). From strong, simple and centered to fluid, confused
: and gullible.
I can't help but agree, except about the "simple" part.
: Has the show been got to?
Everyone who does an interview gives the impression that they're happily
on course and the masters of their fate.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
: You think too much.
"It's my gift, and my curse."
-- Adrian Monk
-Micky
Micky DuPree
: A couple of apparent medical incongruities struck me regarding TB:
:
: Isolation- [....]
: Drugs- [....]
And if the TB skin test that Cameron performed was anything like the
test they gave me when I was a kid, it has to be followed up with more
conclusive tests like the ones Charles ordered at the beginning, but
which House cancelled. Just in itself, it's not a confirmation that you
have TB, though everyone seemed to treat it as such.
But it would have been possible to wave their way around those technical
hitches by minor adjustments to the script. Not so the problems with
characterization, which were actually considered features of the script
rather than bugs.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
: The biggest problem is the show has stopped evolving. They just take
: House's most popular tics, throw them in the episode, and follow all
: the steps from A to Z.
[....]
: They really need to start experimenting again. Late last season, they
: started focusing more on House the character, not just House the
: detective Doctor.
I think they are tinkering with the plot formula. This season, instead
of simply going from wrong diagnosis A to wrong diagnosis B to wrong
diagnosis C and narrowing down the probabilities with each successive
attempt, it seems to be more common (based on the admittedly small
sample space so far) for there to be more than one thing wrong with the
patient (perhaps even through sheer coincidence), and that's what's
complicating the attempt to get the patient well. The trick now is to
separate out what we already know (or at least suspect) is wrong with
the patient from what we can't yet fit a diagnosis to (ill-defined
hallucinations from adrenaline-secreting tumor, terminal cancer from
nominally benign tumor, traumatic fall from preexisting bird disease,
tuberculosis from insulin-secreting tumor). The tinkering with the plot
formula doesn't bother me, but the tinkering with the pacing (probably
because faster pacing equates to younger skewing in the network's eyes)
does.
Unfortunately, at least to the writers' point of view, they are focusing
on the character of House, but that focus has been to his detriment. I
agree completely about their focusing on surface tics or easily
summed-up traits. For example, in "Humpty Dumpty," they seemed to be
bent on showing that House has a really decent core after all in the
final reel, but they didn't care at all how absurd he had to sound to
reach that goal. (And they rewrote Cuddy practically from scratch, but
I've bitched about that in great detail already.) In "TB or Not TB"
they were determined to highlight House's nastiness (after all, every
review of the series has made a point of mentioning House's uncommonly
rude manner, so that's what the crowd is expecting now), but again,
without regard for whether or not his nastiness had a reasoned or
previously consistent basis in what he was responding to.
It was only a bare few months ago that they could write the character as
being both morally decent and temperamentally abrasive in the same
episode *and* do it in such a way that you could see the rhyme and
reason to the character. House had reasons for both his decent
responses and his nasty responses to the world. They might not have
been anyone else's responses, but they were consistently his own and
that was part of the fascination. Now he just seems to be a limping
bundle of moody contradictions. If he were female, I might leap to the
conclusion that they were giving her a really REALLY bad menopause
(which I'd probably also complain about, but at least it would be *a*
reason).
As I indicated before, if we could see some precipitating reason why
this is happening, I would still have issues with the execution (all
this irrationality should provoke comment from the other characters),
but then I could at least buy all this as an attempt at a new
development in long-term characterization instead of mere inattentive
fumbling. But the only things that have been previously hinted at as
possible time bombs in House's life are the potential for increased drug
dependency (the possibility for which has been badly undercut by the
decreased visibility of same) and the presence of Stacy, the only thing
that had enough of an effect on House last season to disturb him out of
his usual professional orbit.
So far this season, despite all of the trepidation on the part of the
other characters and the fans, House and Stacy both seem to be keeping
their romantic distance. In fact, it has puzzled me that I haven't seen
practically any of their raw pain, anger, and awkward longing from the
first season (all of which seemed so fresh it was like they had been
apart for only six months, not five years). I could see an argument
that the "exit interview" in his office at the tail end of last season
finally settled matters between them and House now realizes that their
problems went deeper than just his leg, but then I'd have to wonder why
the writers kept her around for the first half of this season. Just to
be able to put Sela Ward's name on the bill?
I have a theory about where they're going with House. I just don't see
any reason why he would be going there *now* as opposed to last year or
next year. Twice now they've had Wilson make a big deal out of
contrasting House with a patient who's facing a more hopeless situation
than he is, yet who is enjoying life/work more than House is. Nine-
year-old Dead Moppet Walking Andie was portrayed as enjoying life more
than House does. Eh, that wasn't such a bad conclusion in itself
(although House's unprecedented whining to make an instant contrast with
her bravery was). However, now we're supposed to believe that House
doesn't even enjoy his work anymore (unlike Dr. Charles), which comes
completely out of left field, since House's work has hitherto been the
big sustaining factor of his life. If that's changed, fine, bring it
on, but give us a viable reason why it's changed.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
: The problem is they are afraid to let anyone die on the show.
Don't forget the homeless woman in "Histories" and the pregnant woman in
"Babies and Bathwater."
: People seem to forget the episode where one baby lived and one baby
: died in the first season. They killed a baby, for Christ's sake--that
: takes balls.
Technically they didn't. It turned out that the antibiotic House put
the doomed baby on wasn't what killed him after all. But House was
willing to accept the fatality from the antibiotic with his eyes wide
open, and on American broadcast TV, that takes big brass ones. To be
fair, though, House never once decreased the odds for any individual
baby based on what they thought was wrong. Each baby's perceived
chances remained at 50-50. House just rejected the option of gambling
that both babies would live versus both of them dying from the same
antibiotic, because that would yield less reliable diagnostic
information for the remaining babies. But since they didn't bother
sugarcoating House's decision with explanations about the odds, it still
took guts to say, yes, I'm condemning one baby to death.
Nowadays, it seems to be about treating patients who are facing hopeless
situations anyway, even if they don't die on House's watch. Not only
does this suggest at least as much futility in House's actions as House
attributed to Charles' actions, but if House is going to personally take
credit for all the people that Charles will save from now on, it's only
a simple step of logic from there to realizing that he should be
personally assuming all the futility that he attributed to Charles'
future work as well. But the "Wouldn't it be cool" version of House
seems to be no longer cursed with the ability to do the math. He also
seems to have become exponentially more shallow. The very same
character whom David Shore and Hugh Laurie are on record as saying has
no need of the approval of others now seems to be jealous that someone
else is getting that approval instead of him.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
: Micky DuPree wrote:
:: I miss the House that was classically educated.
:
: What are the other kinds of education?
The most immediate contrast would be with an education that excludes
texts not originally written in Latin or ancient Greek. I.e., a
classical education is one that is rooted in the texts of classical
languages. This is primarily what I was keying off of, in that House
had demonstrated prior familiarity with Socrates, Galen, Hippocrates
(though he pooh-poohed him), and then threw in some medieval Dante for
good measure (no, don't email me telling me Dante didn't write in
Latin; I'm saying there was breadth there). Once upon a time, I would
have easily believed that House had read Newton in Latin as well, but
even if he's not fluent in the classical languages, I still miss his
familiarity with ancient and medieval works.
Another definition would be rigorous inculcation in what the ancients
defined as the seven "liberal arts" (small-l, folks, don't get your
knickers in a twist): grammar, logic, arithmetic, rhetoric, geometry,
music, and astronomy. Another definition would be a modern update of
the same themes (expanded to include a more catholic notion of math and
science, as well as history and literature). Philosophy was sort of
seen as a meta-discipline.
Another way to contrast it would be with a strictly technical education:
a curriculum designed with purely instrumental ends in mind and
therefore spurning what are looked upon as "useless" academic subjects
that will not further a business or practical career.
I liked the fact that House used to be equally at ease with ancient
philosophy and contemporary popular culture. I can't remember any of
the former in a while, none at all in the second season.
-Micky
dre...@yahoo.com
MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>They used to be able to make cute plays on words that made sense. I
>don't think any of the second season is intended to be analyzed.
Basically, you expect meaningful things to happen in an episodic
network show, where the real goal is to run for 5+ years and hit
paydirt with syndication.
If you want things like consistent character development, watch HBO,
or a BBC miniseries.
Micky DuPree
: Now [House] is flip for no reason, mean for no reason, and stupid for
: no reason. The "old" House always had reasons. And Hugh Laurie seems
: to be phoning it in.
I'm willing to entertain the idea that Laurie is just doing what he's
told to do by the writers and directors. He doesn't seem to have the
star mentality that would urge him to counter, "Hang on, House wouldn't
say that," or, "Why is he doing this when he did the opposite before?"
or even, "Sorry old chap, but did you mean for this not to make any
sense?" He certainly has the power to at this point, though. The
series can barely shoot a foot of film without him.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
: On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 12:26:15 +0000 (UTC),
: MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
:: They used to be able to make cute plays on words that made sense. I
:: don't think any of the second season is intended to be analyzed.
:
: Basically, you expect meaningful things to happen in an episodic
: network show, where the real goal is to run for 5+ years and hit
: paydirt with syndication.
I wasn't speculating about vague and prejudiced generalities. I was
basing an expectation for one more good season of _House_ on their past
and proven performance, already a done deal in the can. But maybe good
reviews, better ratings, and a bigger budget came along and wrecked
their chances. I'm being only partly sarcastic. It wouldn't be the
first time a good show got distracted by money and accolades.
-Micky
trotsky
> macr...@excite.com writes:
>
> : The biggest problem is the show has stopped evolving. They just take
> : House's most popular tics, throw them in the episode, and follow all
> : the steps from A to Z.
>
> [....]
>
> : They really need to start experimenting again. Late last season, they
> : started focusing more on House the character, not just House the
> : detective Doctor.
>
> I think they are tinkering with the plot formula.
Ah yes, that dead horse. And, as if on cue, they have an episode where
they couldn't save the patient. It's tough being right all the time.
trotsky
I'm not sure what people are looking for. The fate of a patient can
only go two ways: he or she can live or die. Obviously, if House is the
genius diagnostician he's touted to be, they are going to live the vast
majority of the time. And yet, we get pea brains that cry "formula!".
(I'm not saying you're doing this, but you did this in your last post.)
In actuality, the number of different medical situations, and
combinations of medical situations, presented on the show has been
pretty well done.
As for the character of House, the TB episode was a full jumping the
shark moment for me, but I'm hoping with this last episode they have
come to their senses and turned it back around to be closer to season 1.
I sure hope I'm not stuck in a situation where I want to watch the
show for Hugh Laurie even though I think the show itself sucks.
trotsky
> I liked the fact that House used to be equally at ease with ancient
> philosophy and contemporary popular culture. I can't remember any of
> the former in a while, none at all in the second season.
In fact, they even had an episode last season called "The Socratic
Method", whereas this season they should have a follow up episode called
"House Get to Be Condescending All the Time".
trotsky
I don't think that's it, I think it's a case of nameless Fox executives
thinking they can make more money by "tweaking" it. As a result, Fox
churns through TV shows like the Chicago Cubs churn through ball players.
Mike S.
In article <dkqa8g$b34$3...@pcls4.std.com>,
Micky DuPree <MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:
>rets...@xinap.moc (Mike S.) writes:
>
>: A couple of apparent medical incongruities struck me regarding TB:
>:
>: Isolation- [....]
>
>: Drugs- [....]
>
>And if the TB skin test that Cameron performed was anything like the
>test they gave me when I was a kid, it has to be followed up with more
>conclusive tests like the ones Charles ordered at the beginning, but
>which House cancelled. Just in itself, it's not a confirmation that you
>have TB, though everyone seemed to treat it as such.
That's right. A positive skin test is, using today's terminology,
diagnostic of "latent TB infection" which means you have been infected
with the germ (to the point that it has been 'noticed' by your immune
system) but may or may not have actually have the disease. [Not all who are
infected with the germ actually get TB]. To diagnose the disease, you
have to be followed up, as you say.
>But it would have been possible to wave their way around those technical
>hitches by minor adjustments to the script.
...which begs the question ...
Elbow Baggins
"Get"? ^^
Do you per chance mean...
"House Gets to Be Condescending All the Time"?
Rick
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:jAmcf.315004$084.36367@attbi_s22...
Then how can a show jump the shark if you already think the show sucks?
Micky DuPree
: I'm not sure what people are looking for. The fate of a patient can
: only go two ways: he or she can live or die. Obviously, if House is
: the genius diagnostician he's touted to be, they are going to live the
: vast majority of the time. And yet, we get pea brains that cry
: "formula!". (I'm not saying you're doing this, but you did this in
: your last post.)
I did. I think it's fair to describe the fact that there are
repetitions that constitute a recognizable formula without it being a
complaint. I think there was a pretty obvious season-one formula, much
as there often is with a police procedural or with the classic English
drawing-room mystery. And as is usually the case with fans of those
crime stories, I didn't have any problem with the _House_ plot formula,
particularly since with _House_, the plot points were often consciously
and stealthily chosen to organically bring out points of
characterization in the regulars.
So far, I haven't particularly minded them varying the plot formula this
season either. It has been neither here nor there with me except as an
academic point of interest. My overriding complaint with the second
season has been with the characterization, its unintelligence and
inconsistency.
: In actuality, the number of different medical situations, and
: combinations of medical situations, presented on the show has been
: pretty well done.
I'm inclined to agree, and I do not mind stylization in the plot if the
point of that is to illuminate character in the end. It has never
bothered me that so often the B plot will coincidentally contain
elements that will spark a connection to the A plot in House's mind and
the two plots will just happen to tie together thematically, even though
the odds of that happening so many times in real life are nil.
: As for the character of House, the TB episode was a full jumping the
: shark moment for me, but I'm hoping with this last episode they have
: come to their senses and turned it back around to be closer to season
: 1.
No one working on the show seems to think there's the slightest thing
wrong with it. Most of the critics and fans agree. What's there to
make them think otherwise?
-Micky
Micky DuPree
: Micky DuPree wrote:
:: I was basing an expectation for one more good season of _House_ on
:: their past and proven performance, already a done deal in the can.
:: But maybe good reviews, better ratings, and a bigger budget came
:: along and wrecked their chances. I'm being only partly sarcastic.
:: It wouldn't be the first time a good show got distracted by money and
:: accolades.
:
: I don't think that's it, I think it's a case of nameless Fox
: executives thinking they can make more money by "tweaking" it. As a
: result, Fox churns through TV shows like the Chicago Cubs churn
: through ball players.
It's not implausible. Outside interference would certainly be the
simplest explanation. But so far there hasn't been the slightest hint
that that's what's going on. If you read or listen to anyone who'll
give an interview, they're all the masters of their fate and Laurie's
even said that Fox knows better than to meddle with the character.
On the other hand, what's happened does mirror critical and fan praise
for the show. Now that Hugh Laurie is an unlikely sleeper sex symbol,
the character of House has gone from a pointedly isolated loner who
alienated, snubbed, scorned, deceived, and even antagonized the other
doctors at PPTH (to the point where the board of directors was once
ready to vote him off the island) to an alpha male who smoothly bosses
the whole hospital around if he wants to, including his own boss. It
would have been a fascinating subplot if House had had to go around the
hospital hat in hand, eating crow and mending fences, to put together
the live-autopsy team, with the added bonus of demonstrating that, yes,
House really is willing to do anything to save his patient, even submit
to hated social amends with doctors he considers inferior. But House
channeling Roy Scheider in the pre-Broadway run of "All That Autopsy
Jazz" was so much slicker, how could they resist?
Although it doesn't bother me as much, even the visual look of the show
seems more mainstream, less moody, less distinctive. In keeping with
the hybridization with the crime drama, the lighting and camera angles
last year reminded me chiefly of the mystery genre, with interesting,
almost _noir_ shadows and isolating angles at times. This year, I'm
reminded more of the visual style of generic hospital dramas, lots of
fill light, opened-up set design, a bit more naturalistic, but therefore
less moody and differentiated from the crowd. It's an oldie but a goody
that sometimes powerful creative things arise from limitation.
-Micky
Patty Winter
Micky DuPree <MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:
>trotsky <gms...@email.com> writes:
>
>: I think it's a case of nameless Fox
>
>simplest explanation. But so far there hasn't been the slightest hint
>that that's what's going on. If you read or listen to anyone who'll
>give an interview, they're all the masters of their fate and Laurie's
>even said that Fox knows better than to meddle with the character.
So has anyone involved with the show said that they're doing anything
differently this year? If so, have they said what they're doing differently,
and why?
Patty
Micky DuPree
: In article <dkqa8g$b34$3...@pcls4.std.com>, Micky DuPree
: <MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:
:: But it would have been possible to wave their way around those
:: technical hitches by minor adjustments to the script.
:
: ...which begs the question ...
Sometimes it's lack of time, sometimes it's lack of money, and sometimes
I think they bend the technical details on purpose because it makes for
smoother plot transitions, more dramatic confrontations that wouldn't
have taken place face to face in real life, and less unsnappy expository
dialogue. My theory, anyway.
-Micky
BreadW...@fractious.net
> In article <dkqa8g$b34$3...@pcls4.std.com>,
> Micky DuPree <MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:
> >And if the TB skin test that Cameron performed was anything like the
> >test they gave me when I was a kid, it has to be followed up with more
> >conclusive tests like the ones Charles ordered at the beginning, but
>
> That's right. A positive skin test is, using today's terminology,
> diagnostic of "latent TB infection" which means you have been infected
> with the germ (to the point that it has been 'noticed' by your immune
> system) but may or may not have actually have the disease. [Not all who are
But wouldn't his other symptoms corroborate it? The skin test
by itself isn't enough, but the skin test + other symptoms is
a whole different thing.
--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
Micky DuPree
: rets...@xinap.moc (Mike S.) writes:
:: In article <dkqa8g$b34$3...@pcls4.std.com>, Micky DuPree
:: <MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:
::: And if the TB skin test that Cameron performed was anything like the
::: test they gave me when I was a kid, it has to be followed up with
::: more conclusive tests like the ones Charles ordered at the
::: beginning [....]
::
:: That's right. A positive skin test is, using today's terminology,
:: diagnostic of "latent TB infection" which means you have been
:: infected with the germ (to the point that it has been 'noticed' by
:: your immune system) but may or may not have actually have the
:: disease.
:
: But wouldn't his other symptoms corroborate it? The skin test by
: itself isn't enough, but the skin test + other symptoms is a whole
: different thing.
The other symptoms were suspicious, but not conclusive. What bugged
me was that House immediately acted like the diagnosis was conclusive
before he had done any other testing:
HOUSE: Well, of course he's got TB! The guy's been in the jungle
for twenty years!
The symptoms could have indicated something else, and in fact, there was
something else going on. As House complained early on, TB takes years
to kill you and the guy had been fine just two weeks prior. In fact,
even when House thought he was on the road to teasing apart the symptoms
for TB from the symptoms for "other," he was partly wrong:
HOUSE: Cardiac arrest, clearly not TB. CSF sugar clearly is TB.
But the low cerebrospinal fluid sugar was actually due to a tumor, not
to TB. That's what keeps House in business. The symptoms for X also
look like the symptoms for Y.
-Micky