Update: There's a newer (and I believe better) article on UnSpace about "The Book of Daniel," titled "The Book of Daniel Cancelled; Wildmon Gloats."
A few corrections have been made to this article, and except for spelling errors, are noted. It never fails that, when you get linked to by a well-read blog, the post linked to contains errors that slipped through the proofing process!
The TV show with the most controversy this year has to be NBC's The Book of Daniel. Well, I finally made it through the VCR backlog. Here's my take (with an assist from TV Guide's interview with Aidan Quinn (the actor who plays the Rev. Daniel Webster.
I might be expected to dislike this show: NBC cancelled "Three Wishes" for this, and I'm an Amy Grant fan. I'm more annoyed that NBC CBS cancelled "Joan Of Arcadia" and, in an amazing bout of cluelessness, replaced it with "Ghost Whisperer," aiming to appeal to the "same audience."
"The Book of Daniel" is, in fact, "Joan of Arcadia" Lite, with writing that's not quite as good and fewer people you like as characters. You find yourself constantly rooting for Jesus (who looks way too WASPy and like he wouldn't last 40 minutes in a carpentry shop, let alone the wilderness) to smite people. This show actually has me rooting for God to smite people, which in a lot of people's opinions is an improvement in my theological stance. I'm still recovering from reading the five Books of Moshe last year.
Jesus has a sense of humor, which is good. The real Jesus had some great lines, but everyone's too scared of Him to laugh. That has so got to be a pain for the Lord. Best joke ever was after the resurrection, He tells Mary "Hey, don't hold me so tight, or I'll never be able to ascend to the Father." I may be the only person in slightly less than 2000 years to get it. Sigh. The TV show Jesus doesn't seem to have any answers, which Nancy the psychologist thinks is wonderful and I find a little uncharacteristic. A lot of people are concerned that Jesus isn't judgmental. I can see him being easy on the kids in the family, in a combination of understanding frail humans and prioritizing his efforts to get the Rev. Daniel Webster off the drugs. The other religious figures in the show? Smite! Smite! Smite!
Sorry.
Anyway, the most interesting question is "Is this really Jesus, or just an externalization of Rev. Daniel Webster's prayer life? Well, TV Guide just ruined that for me. Aidan Quinn says, in the January 23-29, 2006 issue on page 28:
I think Jesus is in Daniel's mind. This isn't the Second Coming. This isn't the real Jesus come down in corporeal form to talk to Daniel. It's what he imagines Jesus would say to him.
Well, the best I can make of that is this is what Aidan Quinn thinks. I hope the writers throw in some Straczynski-like ambiguity.
The Rev. Daniel Webster? Who in their right mind would name their kid Daniel Webster? So asks the man who once dated Betsy Ross. The Rev. Daniel is easily the most likable person on the show. As many patients and conservative radio commentators have found out, it's easy to become addicted to prescribed painkillers, and that's what happened to the Rev. Narcotics don't work on me, but there was a nonsteroidal I once took that made me feel so good, I flushed the entire prescription down the toilet. I hope the Rev. buys a similar clue.
The Rev.'s family needs a visit from Nanny 911 or SuperNanny. No, wait. Send all of them. I've seen toddlers that were better behaved. The Rev.'s wife has some serious problems with her mother; if there was a high-class Jerry Springer show, they'd fit right in.
The Rev.'s sister-in-law and her late husband's secretary are supposed to be lesbians. Yeah. Right. If they're lesbian, then they're actually doing an amazing job of two straight actresses playing lesbians.
You know what? If Jesus were hanging out with someone, he'd hang out with this family. They need Him.
Back when I was two years old, when Lucy was about to be laughed at or do something stupid, my brain would hurt so bad I would slam my head into the wall to make the pain stop. I know, it explains a lot. I only need to slam my head into the wall occasionally with this show. The humor isn't great with "The Book of Daniel" and it doesn't leave you with that "Everything's Alright" feeling of "Joan of Arcadia."
Right now, watching TV on Friday nights is a complete and utter pain. Sci-Fi has new episodes of "Stargate," "Stargate Atlantis" and "Battlestar Galactica." Close to Home is on CBS at 9, followed by "Numb3rs" (a must-watch show: we're talking nerds and crime!). Monk is on at 10, although it's thankfully repeated at 6 the next day. Fitting in "The Book of Daniel" is a pain: I have to set the VCR to record the Sci-Fi stuff beginning at 11 p.m., which means I have trouble watching it to see if it screws up. We almost missed the season opener of "Battlestar Galactica" as a result.
If the writers begin to find the characters and the actors and actresses get comfortable with whom they're playing, we might continue to watch "The Book of Daniel." The first season of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" had terrible moments but grew into a decent show. We'll continue to watch for a while, if only to annoy the folks who condemned the show sight-unseen and threatened stations showing it.
But orneriness only carries my TV watching so far.
Hi Rob,
There are only six episodes of Daniel left, and it’s unlikely NBC will pick it up. While it’s performed better than anything else NBC has had in that time period, it has virtually no advertising. The pilot had a Disney World ad; the rest were NBC promos and ads from King Kong, a Universal Picture. (NBC, of course, now owns Universal.)
There’s more info here:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/171/story_17189_1.html
I want to like Book of Daniel. I’m not sure yet; I’ll keep watching, especially if there are only a few more episodes left, but I keep feeling like they’ve missed the mark a bit. If they’re trying to be absurdist, they got the goofy situations but not the follow-through; if they’re trying to build empathy for Daniel, they’ve got to show some more depth there. Either approach would work, but it seems like they’re trying to strike a balance and failing at both.
I was kind of hoping that Jesus would be a little more edgy and snarky than he is. He gets occasional good lines, but he’s not a compelling character. Pity. From the ads (before it aired), I thought this show would be something like that 70s movie “Oh God!”. A George-Burns-style Jesus would have been great!
It is entertaining, but lacking that edge that makes these shows work really well. The family is absurdly quirky and the sister in law is especially annoying. So not a lesbian. Just a middle age woman going through her “experimental” phase … again.
I’d watch if I’m home on a Friday, but would not stay home to view it.
Ghost Whisperer is ridiculous. Medium is a gazillion times better. GW has the same ending every single episode … enough with the light already. I’ll take Allison making eggs and refereeing a kiddie spat any day of the week.
Oh, how I miss Joan of Arcadia and her band of misfits …
[...] Ironically, last Friday’s episode showed that there was a hidden depth to this show. I complained that the family of the Rev. Daniel Webster needed Nanny 911. In Friday’s episode, we learned that the Websters had lost a son. The parents began abusing alcohol or drugs as a result. Like too many, they were so thankful for the children they had left, they abandoned their role of parents and became friends to their children — with disastrous results. This behavior is typical of parents that have lost a child. I should have figured out what was wrong with the family before it was revealed on the show. In hindsight it’s obvious. [...]
[...] Is "mystery" a translation of "mysterion"or really just transliteration? Is "church", as the concept is understood by Catholics, Orthodox, and mainline Protestants, an accurate translation of "ekklesia"? Some animals’ free speech rights are apparently more equal than others’. Witness the carnage when a pro-choicer seemingly breaks ranks. Dappled Things has a good article about Robertson’s recent stupid remark about Sharon. "VISION: The quality of agreeing with me." Read more from the Modern Seminarian’s Dictionary. Find out why Christian bloggers need a stronger narrative in order to be of interest. Pope Hillary? Pope Oprah? I’d add the early Church Fathers to this list of things more substantial than blogs to read, but the point is well made. Here’s a fair appraisal of "The Book of Daniel". Real Ultimate Anglo-Catholic Power! Pontifications explains the differences between Calvin and Luther’s teachings about faith. You might be able to lower your insurance payments by going to mass. [...]