What's it about?
Meet Will. His evolved, sensitive nature is why his awesome wife Theresa married him. But Will and his friends find themselves wondering -- in a world of body spray and manscaping -- what does it really mean to be a guy anymore? Will is more interested in finding the perfect gift for his son Nathan's 13th birthday than in doing his job selling insurance, sensitive soul Craig still pines for his college ex Lisa, and Kenny clamps down on his anger and asks himself "What would Tobey Maguire do?" when his ex Brenda starts seeing a guy who is everything he's not. And though it may not come naturally, each new day brings these lovable beta males another opportunity to Man Up and be like their forefathers.
So, how was it?
After last week's horrific premiere of LAST MAN STANDING, I was dreading sitting down to watch MAN UP!, ABC's other new sitcom about what it means to be a man in the modern world. I assumed it would be a carbon copy of that show's sexist, homophobic, unfunny DNA (minus Tim Allen, of course). Imagine my surprise then, when I actually enjoyed it. And laughed. Multiple times.
This show was, without question, the single biggest surprise of the fall 2011 TV season. Thank goodness I had such abysmally low expectations after reading the synopsis and watching LAST MAN STANDING. This show turned out to be much smarter, much better-written, much less offensive, and just downright funnier than I thought it would be.
MAN UP! and LAST MAN STANDING do have their similarities. They both center around males who bemoan the emasculation of men in the modern world of tanning and pomegranate body wash while simultaneously striving to find what it really means to be a "man." But whereas the protagonist of LAST MAN STANDING is supposed to be the very ideal of a man and what every man should strive to be, the three men on MAN UP! are not. They are exactly the men that Tim Allen is complaining about: they use non-dairy hazelnut creamer, they spend the day playing video games and they strum guitars in chapels to the loves of their lives. And that's okay. They may talk about wanting to be more manly, but (at least in the pilot), they discover that what it means to be a man is not necessarily what they thought. They decide to take a level-headed approach and confront the crowd of angry groomsmen (I'm not even gonna get into why there's a crowd of angry groomsmen...just watch it) to discuss their issues. The one guy who decides to "be a man" and physically fight them gets arrested. The three friends discover that sometimes talking, rather than punching, is the "manly" thing to do. Or maybe the "manliest" gift to get your son for his 13th birthday isn't a shaving kit, it's just a sentimental family heirloom. Cliché? Maybe. But far less offensive than the idea that to be a man you have to denigrate the female members of your family.
While LAST MAN STANDING spends its half-hour trying to tell its audience that to be a man you have to run a sporting goods store, talk about hunting and make fun of GLEE, MAN UP! teaches us that sometimes being a man just means bonding with your son, talking through your issues and listening to your wife. Radical, I know. Definitely not the same message that LAST MAN STANDING is going for, and will most likely actually alienate the kind of people who find Tim Allen's show funny, which makes me wonder why they were marketed so similarly. While that show is targeted at people stuck in the 20th century who think it's still okay to be scared of gay people indoctrinating our children, this show targets people who recognize that what it means to "be a man" may have evolved over time, but just because you're not shooting something every day doesn't mean you're any less masculine.
To me, the most revealing difference between the shows comes in the last sentence of the show's description on ABC's website: "[MAN UP!] follows the struggles of three modern male archetypes as they search for their identities and try to prove that "real men" really can use hazelnut creamer." That could not be farther from the point of LAST MAN STANDING. In this show, rather than fighting the modern world, these characters will be finding ways to live in it and be okay with the fact that yes, they may use pomegranate body wash but yes, they are still men.
All this and I haven't even talked about the actors. Briefly, then: The three leads (Mather Zickel, Christopher Moynihan and Dan Fogler) are likable and identifiable, but maybe that's just because they're not busy talking down to their teenage daughters. Teri Polo (MEET THE PARENTS) is drily hysterical as Will's wife Theresa, who quietly embodies the calmness and level head that Will is so desperate to achieve in his quest to be the man of the house. Young Jake Johnson is a mini-McLovin as Nathan, Will and Theresa's awkward teenage son. The whole cast is full of "no-name" actors who turn in believable performances, which is actually refreshing in this day and age of shows needing big names to attract attention. Unfortunately, that may mean that this show continues to fly under the radar and see an early cancellation due to low ratings, which would really be a shame, considering that LAST MAN STANDING will probably survive based on Tim Allen's name alone.
Rating:
*** Solid. I'm interested and will definitely keep watching.
In terms of sheer laughter, I would rank MAN UP! below UP ALL NIGHT, but about on par with SUBURGATORY and NEW GIRL and above 2 BROKE GIRLS. It was a massive relief to see a show tackle the issue of masculinity while not delving into derogatory sexism. It will take a delicate balance to continue broaching this topic without becoming cliché or offensive, but the pilot did it with aplomb, and I'm optimistic that the writers will continue to be successful.
What did you think, Fellow Addicts? Were you pleasantly surprised by the show or were you disappointed? Which do you prefer, this or LAST MAN STANDING? Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!
(For a quick glance at the other pilots coming out, check out my Fall TV Preview.)
No comments:
Post a Comment