Why Did "Smash" Go Boom?

     The biggest mistake was complication. When you begin an hour-long television drama, you have to focus on a small core set of characters---3 or 4 at the most, but really, the focus should be on one or two. With "Smash," it seemed everyone was the star. That means as a viewer not only do you not know where to look, you lose track of who's doing what and most importantly, what you really care about. It's unfortunate that the in-show team working on "Bombshell" obviously knew this, but the show's writers forgot. If they felt the cast was so star-studded they couldn't neglect anyone, the story itself should have held command until viewers could connect and start to love certain characters. Writing them each a complicated subplot doesn't do that.

     The first season should have focused on the Ivy and Karen characters, and with a slight encompassing ring around a couple others, like Julia and Derek. I would have said the male writer, except at episode 11 of the second season, I realize I do not know his name, and that's a bad sign, especially since the show's manic spectrum certainly has highlighted him often. Even this core selection should have had relatively Bombshell-centric subplots: for example, Julia's affair with the Bombshell actor worked, but we didn't need so much detail on her home life, and the adoption thing was just ridiculous. Adoption or affair, writers! Pick one. The adoption thing is a plotline you find five years into a show, when the writers are running out of other ideas.

     The focus on Anjelica Huston's character was another weird choice. Yes, for the backstory on production financing, her divorce and later romance served its purpose. But no viewer is really invested on seeing a lot of details about her failed marriage or new loves. As expensive as I'm sure she is, her role in Smash was filler, not focus material. Whenever the show turned to her, I found myself spending more time wondering how all these men were so interested in romancing her than in what was actually written. I know some men admire a strong woman, but her continuous string of disappointed husband, hot bar-owning lover willing to go to prison for her, and star NYT reviewer paramour was quite a lot to believe. Having lived in NY most of my life, I know that given the facts and ratios, it's a hard sell even for a glamorous, wealthy, powerful older woman to beat out the younger and more beautiful women. Especially since many of them are equally wealthy, powerful, and glamorous. It rather evens the playing field. You'd think being kind of fun and cool, as she is, would help also. But no. There are simply too many people in New York, which means the cool and fun wealthy, powerful, glamorous, youthful hotties abound as well. Unless you have a really strong combination of all the factors, it's going to be a tough dating row to hoe. It's beyond comfortable suspension of disbelief that Anjelica Huston's character finds two terrific, stable, handsome suitors in quick succession.

     Then we have the bizarre celebrity guest star arcs. No, I think Bernadette Peters is a great idea for Ivy's mom. I'm talking about Uma Thurman as a pointless beard and Jennifer Hudson as a passing distraction.
     I really felt sorry for Uma Thurman for the first time in my life after her turn as a peanut-allergic washed up Hollywood actress in Smash's first season. Who knew she was such a sad sack? Nobody, until after this role. I had considered her a beautiful, if mediocre, second-tier actress and striking advertising spokesmodel. Now I feel like maybe it wasn't just mediocre acting that led to her dwindling major roles. Smash painted her as an over-the-hill (which I'd not usually think at 43) no-talent. In comparison to Ivy and Karen, the "no-talent" bit felt real, and was obvious in a way it never had been before. In addition to the bland acting, Thurman can't sing, can't dance, and is awkwardly tall, gawky, and graceless. If she was simply "acting" all that, kudos! Or really dumb move, because it was utterly convincing. She was highly unlikeable to boot. Rarely are you ever happy to see a bit character poisoned, but any way they got rid of her was applause worthy.
     As for Jennifer Hudson, I still don't understand the point of that one. Yes, she lent some inspiration to characters and gave the lead-in for the Hit List's production, but that could have happened in a guest spot. Like the Jonas brother appearance--that was done right. Hudson's overstretched arc was yet another case of the writers including a big-name star just for flash, then writing too much story for that meaningless role.

     So we have the scattered subplots issue that ran around the first season, and senseless guest spots. Despite that, the series produced incredible episodes with heartrending songs, and a few characters developed into people you really believed and cared about. The first season finale left you interested, and wanting more.
     However, when the series returned for season two, it immediately pulled a lot of the interest apart by suggesting Bombshell was going to be shelved, abruptly dropping subplots and actors/characters that had been (rightly or wrongly) given a lot of attention, and introducing totally new actors/characters to start totally new, disparate, confusing subplots. Yes, some of the new subplots helped realign Smash into something more workable (a Broadway and an off-Broadway split focus is a great idea) and correct or resolve mistakes (the ridiculous choice of Karen as Marilyn, when Ivy was the obvious soul of the part), but there were too many new directions and too little immediate "welcome back" satisfaction for a show starting up again after nearly a year's absence.
     Oh, yes, that's right. Perhaps the most deadly flaw in Smash's brief existence was the waiting period. It was a 2012 midseason replacement that ran from early to late spring last year. Like many shows that start off that way, I fully expected it would reappear in the fall as part of NBC's new lineup. But no! Was it canceled? No, they were still talking about it online, it would return. As interested as anyone may be, after a fall full of new shows, returning shows, and all that real life going on, it's hard to keep the flame alive when you're waiting from May 2012 until February 2013.

     But it could have still worked. It could have even worked with the new subplots, perhaps better than with the old, if only it had all been handled correctly.
     Getting rid of Julia's whole messy, uninteresting personal life if family, husband, and son was a great idea, though handled very poorly. Suddenly they only exist as infrequent off-screen afterthoughts, as if the writers realized that perhaps she never should have had a family to begin with. That reads oddly. Come up with something better. The husband divorced her, moved to Chicago, the son went with him because he's interested in going to college there anyway---something that explains why she never sees him until two episodes before the finale.
     Her writing partner had a great romance starting with the dancer. Then they send the dancer away on a tour, bring him back, but make him (rightfully) angry, then split. What's the point of that? We were just investing in the romance, and this is a peripheral subplot at best. Just make it stable for a while.

     Maybe I'm wrong about complication being the biggest mistake, or the time lapse deadly. Certainly looming large in my mind is the conundrum of Jeremy Jordan. For the target demographic of the show, of course, the name Jeremy Jordan immediately conjures up Donna Martin at the jukebox, woodenly exclaiming "Jeremy Jordan---all right!" as she pops his song to play out the Beverly Hills 90210 credits.

Sure, it only happened on a couple of episodes, but that's why we remember it. It was so random and lame, so mock-worthy that it garnered copious attention. Unfortunately for the first Jeremy Jordan, it would have been better if that particular song hadn't had attention drawn to it. He went on to some D-list career, including acting roles, until the end of the '90s, with a semi-recent attempt at revival.      So to the target demographic of "Smash" (they say 18-49, but you know it's got to be late 20s & up at best), this is Jeremy Jordan. When the name appeared onscreen, I thought "what-what?" and rushed to Google.  I like the film Newsies, but possibly that was because I was a preteen when it came out (full of preteen boys), and how many people can afford Broadway shows nowadays? So I've never heard of any other Jeremy Jordan. I was shocked when a lispy, short, angry-looking dude with a heavy brow and hair that looked painted-on entered the scene. Shortly, it was obvious he was there because he can sing. But a lot of people can sing. A large handful of them can super-Broadway sing. It doesn't mean they belong on TV, or in certain roles. I think the Smash producers were confusing "fans of Broadway" with "fans of TV shows about Broadway." There may be some overlap, but they are not the same group. This Jeremy Jordan doesn't cut it (at least not from close up, which is how TV works) as the genius who wrote Hit List's songs, or as anyone who could attract Karen/Katharine McPhee. And he may be the same age as she is chronologically, but his character is clearly way less mature, and she's written as someone who wouldn't go for that. He's like someone's petulant, troubled little brother, and few girls over 18 would be into that. We're not even into seeing him onscreen (belated hint, hint, writers!)      The main issue I have with him, though, is that he goes by Jeremy Jordan. SAG rules lay down the law that no two performers can use the same working name. That's why we have odd "include the middle name or initial" actors like Michael J. Fox and Anthony Michael Hall. So why is this second Jeremy Jordan, working even within the same era as the first Jeremy Jordan, going by Jeremy Jordan? It's not even a great name! I assume the second Jeremy Jordan is officially using his middle name for his SAG documentation, but it's the fact that it's not used in credits that leads to the plea, "Google me. I'm not the 90's pop singer/model" (and interestingly, "I'm also not the gay porn star"---that's a whole other demographic he's annoying, I guess) on his Twitter page and unfunny asides in interviews. See, if you didn't rip off someone else's name, JJ, you wouldn't need to make those kinds of off-subject explanations and requests. Plus, when we Google your name, we get you and your ripoff target. Bad choice, Jeremy Jordan.

All right!