Cannes Film Festival 2013

Recap: 'Glee' - Gwyneth Paltrow visits for 'The Substitute'

With Will sick, a new teacher sets her sights on helping New Directions.

<p>Gwyneth Paltrow is singing in the rain on 'Glee'</p>

Gwyneth Paltrow is singing in the rain on 'Glee'

Credit: FOX

After careful consideration, I think I’m coming closer to understanding the perfect way to look at the weekly output of “Glee.” In the past, I’ve tried to liken it to the New England weather, ever-changing. Other times, I’ve chalked up the show to existing in whatever world in which that particular episode’s writer thinks the show exists. But there’s potentially another way to look at the show’s wildly erratic (albeit occasionally brilliant) existence.

Rather than look at what appears on a weekly basis as the carefully considered result of a fine-tuned process from initial idea to final presentation, what the “Glee” audience sees is the result of a first draft that got rushed into production so FOX had something to air on Tuesdays at 8 pm. Between last week’s “Never Been Kissed” and this week’s installment, “The Substitute,” I counted roughly ten plots all fighting for attention and coherence. And that’s without even really trying to keep score.

[Full recap of Tuesday's (Nov. 16) "Glee" after the break...]

Many of you seem tired with what you perceive to be my unmitigated rants on the show, but all I can say is that no show would frustrate me this much without having the essential building blocks for something as great as “Glee” could be if the creative staff had either the time or the inclination to make it better. I haven’t had an issue this past fortnight with any of the particular storylines individually (even while some have been more potent than others) so much as their incredibly poor execution. Many shows suffer from having no ideas. “Glee” has so many that it’s insane, but what’s even more insane is that the show doesn’t seem to know how to dramatize any of them in a sensible way.

Let’s start out with Big Idea #1) What would New Directions, and by proxy “Glee,” be without Will Schuester? About two-thirds of the way through the episode, I cried out, “Much, much better!” A good portion of this week tried to pose this question, all the while essentially undermining the theoretical “hero” of the show. (I put “hero” in quotes because I don’t buy that argument, but the show did introduce the show through his eyes and continues to keep him at the center even though the show’s approximately 50x stronger when it’s about the kids.) Through substitute Holly Holiday, the episode seemed quite content to recast the entire first season as the misplaced dreams of man using his students to relive his past.

Just as “Grilled Cheesus” sought to recontextualize Kurt’s actions towards Finn last year, “The Substitute” seemed to be a referendum on Will himself, calling to mind a lot of the darker edges to his character when the show first started. (Go back and watch him discover Finn singing in the shower. Go head, I’ll wait. Back yet? Oh, YOU need a shower now? My bad.) Between Holiday constantly pointing out that Will doesn’t listen to his students and flashbacks that repeatedly (and semi-hilariously) focused on his obsession with Journey, “Glee” sold me on a Will-less “Glee” being the way for both the group and “Glee” itself to move on.

Want More...

Glee?
  • Check out everything there is including photos, reviews, videos.

Only, just as it did in “Never Been Kissed”, “Glee” pulled away from a potentially interesting set of circumstances to have the kids magically change their minds and save the day. Last week, it was the kids turning Coach Beiste from “She Who Stops Erections” to “She Whom We’ve Always Loved, Even Though There’s No Onscreen Context for That Assertion.” This time around, the students rally to Will’s side, even though they spent the episode (not incorrectly) pointing out all of his flaws. Had such diatribes been mixed with appreciation for his efforts, or had New Directions had a scene in which they realized Holiday wasn’t the be all and end all of the teaching world, such a turnaround would have made sense. But the episode didn’t have time for that, probably because it was dealing with the other six plots going on in the episode.

Don’t believe me? OK, here we go: 1) Kurt/Blaine’s increasing friendship, 2) Mercedes’ Tater Tot obsession, 3) Sue’s grab for power, 4) Will/Teri’s almost reconciliation, 5) the return of Kurt’s bully, and 6) Holiday’s need for a job in this economy. Kurt tried to link stories 1 and 2, which is all a way of saying tonight’s writer Ian Brennan tried to connect the stories at the last minute under my “First Draft” theory of “Glee.” Mercedes didn’t actually use the tater tot ban as a compensatory measure for her lack of love life. She didn’t go on a date with a fellow student because she was insulted Kurt set her up with one of the only other African-American students in the school. Tater Tots stood in with her lost friendship with Kurt, not the lack of a person with whom to go to Breadsticks.

As for Story 6…look, that’s “Glee” at its sheer laziest. I understand that at some point, you have to accept that the production numbers in this show defy all logic and reason. If they weren’t heightened in some way, they would be the equivalent of a Dogme 95 musical. But the show cannot rationalize Holiday’s grab for Will’s job as being part of a rough economy just minutes after performing a duet with Rachel that easily costs thousands of dollars to perform. I loved the number itself, and really enjoyed the spectacle of the “Umbrella”/”Singing in the Rain” medley. In fact, in microbursts, I enjoy quite a lot of “Glee.” It’s when you step back and see the whole thing that the whole endeavor falls apart. (It’s like pointillism, but with more track suits, that way.)

However, having a number like “Make ‘Em Laugh” shows how such numbers can be done correctly. The show can’t always go into fever dreams to produce such numbers, but it can always and ever go into the dreams of the people performing these numbers in order to produce them. The “Nowadays” duet from “Chicago” asks us to believe that what’s happening onstage in that auditorium actually exists in the real world of the show*, not the made up one from “Make ‘Em Laugh” or last year’s Artie-inspired “The Safety Dance.” Constructing such moments takes work, but so do musicals in general. It’s one thing to come up with new and varied takes on introducing music into the world of the show, but without some set of rules as to how these songs are introduced, the entire concept gets weakened.

* Sepinwall-esque Sidebar: What’s amusing is that a throwaway gag (Will sees the students as toddlers) actually points to a great example of how production numbers in the show COULD work: the seminal Saturday morning cartoon “Muppet Babies.” In that show, the babies used their imaginations to empower themselves and/or remove themselves from the mendacity of their nursery. So there: it’s not always about Lars von Trier. Sometimes it’s about Baby Gonzo.

I haven’t touched upon the return of Teri just yet, but in some ways, the less said about it the better. Clearly, the show’s setting her up to be a wild card to throw a monkey wrench into Will’s plans later on. (Then again, if she goes off her meds, maybe she’ll literally throw a wrench at him. Why not?) Having her reintroduced into his life in such an intimate way would have made sense if the show had built up to this moment, layering in a gradual breaking of the ice in the aftermath of the divorce that would have made the menthol rub booty call 1) make sense, and 2) seem like a logical, if ill-advised, step. But under the “First Draft” Theory, it’s simply impossible to expect the show to do that.

But having the entire precondition under which Will and Teri were put together be the rampant sneezing of a girl who by all accounts should be quarantined? That’s perfectly within the realm of the “First Draft” Theory, as is remembering at the last minute that when last we saw Kurt, he was getting bullied and was rather fearful for his life. I understand that his time with Blaine in what several people last week called “Tolerance Narnia” has boosted his mood somewhat, but tacking on last week’s ongoing storyline reeks of something that shows like “Burn Notice” does with its wafer-thin mythology. I appreciate that the show didn’t ENTIRELY forget about last week’s story, but in paying it the merest of lip service this week, it didn’t exactly do it justice, either.

Ultimately, the problem with pointillism productions such as “Glee” is that they can be so focused on the little things that they forget to nail the big picture. Individual moments get more attention than one-liners, which in turn get more attention than consistent characterization, which in turn get more attention than consistent storylines, which in turn finally get more attention than consistent weekly episodes. Holiday spent time tonight telling Will that students love nothing more than themselves, not being able to care about anything else around them. I think the writers of “Glee” sometimes feel the same way about individual ideas set forth each week. They aim for a type of mash-up all their own, but instead of standing under an umbrella of a well-constructed hour of television, they leave most of us standing in the rain.

Did tonight's episode hit all the right notes for you? Or did the multiple storylines merely provide dissonance? Leave your thoughts below!

 

 

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    Marcos

    Ryan, usually I don't see eye to eye with your reviews of Glee, but I totally agree this time around.

    This episode felt even more haphazardly slapped together than most installments, and I just didn't care for it. This is coming from someone who can even see the good parts of "Funk" and "Hairography".

    What was frustrating for me was the promise of the whole Will/Holly story. It really could have caused Will to see the errors of his ways, and helped him get his life back on track. Instead he was back to normal, and nothing really changed.

    "The Substitute" didn't sour me on the series as the whole, but it did open my eyes. I can't always excuse Glee's bad behavior forever, and I may have to reevaluate why I watch this show if the show continues down this path.

    November 16, 2010 at 11:51PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Beth

    I find myself in agreement with your "First Draft" theory. There was just way too much going on, and Mercedes' tater tot obsession seemed way too forced for me. In a show where pot and "vitamin D" have been incorporated on several occasions, something as trivial as tater tots being the new contraband and addiction just didn't fly. For me this episode was saved by some comic lines from Sue and Brittany, and solid musical numbers, which IMO make the show worth watching.

    While I'm not crazy about Holly Holiday's character or name, Gwyneth Paltrow did a great job with the role. I enjoyed the duet with Lea Michele and the final number with Morrison. Speaking of,I'm not sure if it was the neat water effects or the fact that it was a rainy day here, but I loved that mashup of Singin' in the Rain and Umbrella. Two radically different songs, but they totally pulled it off (and Paltrow and Morrison sing well together). It's probably my favorite performance of the season so far.

    November 17, 2010 at 12:01AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    MaryTodd

    Why do the producers and casting directors of the hit show 'Glee' insist on ALWAYS presenting Black women and girls as FAT, LOUD, OBNOXIOUS, UNATTRACTIVE, IGNORANT, GHETTO, etc.?

    On tonight's episode ('The Substitute'), for instance, they presented "beautiful, petite, blonde" Gwyneth Paltrow getting beaten-up (in an unprovoked attack) by a FAT, UGLY, LOUD Black girl (who, of course, "had an attitude" about nothing).

    There was NO REASON for them to present this crude image of Black teen-girls (other than to reinforce the stereotype of the ugly, violent, loud Black).

    The producers, writers and casting directors of this episode should be ashamed of themselves and the Black actress who took on this moronic role should hold her head down in shame.

    This was both offensive and pathetic.

    [NOTE:
    This criticism does NOT include plus-sized actress, Amber Riley (a regular cast-member of the show) -- who has managed to present herself as both an attractive and a dignified character on the episodes I have seen ... unlike all of those other Black actresses who have appeared on the show in 'guest' roles.]

    November 17, 2010 at 12:23AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Travis I don't disagree with you about the stereotypical Black teen presented during tonight's episode, but not all of the Black actresses who have guested on the show fall into the stereotype you've brought up. What about Eve's appearances early in season 1?

      November 17, 2010 at 12:36AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      kvale im pretty sure the "fat, ugly, loud black girl" was gabourey sidibe, the girl from precious

      November 17, 2010 at 1:10AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Beth No, she definitely wasn't Gabourey.

      November 17, 2010 at 4:06AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Dan Yes, it was Gabourey. That's why they identified the student as "Ms. Cameo."

      November 17, 2010 at 11:23AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      christy That would be clever if it had been Gabourey (or someone else famous) but it wasn't. It was Lindsey Sims-Lewis.

      November 17, 2010 at 1:01PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Cassie

    This was a really good episode. Loved the Holly Holliday character and her crazy song-and-dance numbers. They're educational!

    The glee babies were so cute - reminds me of that re-enactment of The Hills by those little kids (on Babelgum)!

    November 17, 2010 at 1:28AM EST Reply to Comment


  • I'm very surprised you didn't take GLEE to task for the"Make 'em Laugh" number. While great in and of itself (as a "microburst"),it had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the story. The plot just stopped.
    And what was the deal with those fantasy sequences when WIll sees the teens as little kids, or when Rachel took over the classroom and wrote 'ME' on the board? I felt like I was watching 30 Rock.

    November 17, 2010 at 2:16AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    ConcernedSC

    Do ya'll really watch "Glee" in order to dissect it later? If you're so concerned with first drafts and big ideas and the proper sequencing of things, no wonder you don't enjoy it! Did you really think the Will/Holly story was going to go anywhere? It's Gwyneth Paltrow...she wasn't in it for the long haul. And don't you see the writing on the wall with Will and Teri? Teri is going to end up pregnant for real and that's going to cause it to hit the fan!
    When I watch "Glee", it's like strapping myself in for one heck of a roller coaster ride. I don't try to study the scenery as I'm whizzing along. I just enjoy the ride for what it is.

    November 17, 2010 at 12:48PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Bergie GREAT OBSERVATION!! I didn't even think that Terri would get pregnant for real from this one-night affair! Brilliant!! You are the one who should be writing columns. Thanks for your observation. CONCERNEDSC rocks!!

      November 17, 2010 at 1:56PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Pamela Basey

    Thanks for the interesting commentary. I enjoyed this episode, except for the make em laugh number which was nicely performed but thrown into an odd spot in the script. I so enjoy the characters and their talent that I can overlook the costly looking numbers in a school district with budget problems. You have opened my eyes to script issues. I miss the character development of season 1. I think their guest performers get contracted in before the writers know what to do with them and it breaks the story rhythm, if there is a storyboard for the season to follow.

    November 17, 2010 at 1:10PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Gia

    The "mendacity" of the nursery? The nursery was full of lies? Or were you going for "mundanity" and just missed by a couple of letters?

    Also, I do think there is a way-- musicals do it all the time-- to have huge production numbers exist in the "real world" of the show even when they wouldn't exist in ours. But it requires a very very heightened, joyful, exuberant "real world" that I think Glee attempts to reach-- but it rarely gets there. I'm not sure how much of it is due to television vs. stage; the usual line is that stage is just naturally suited to heightened reality due to the constraints of performing in a theater (a set of a house is never going to be an actual house, for example). But I think there's also something there about the likeability of characters; the Glee *cast* is quite likeable, but the characters? Eech. And that may also be a relic of stage-to-tv thinking (having a character who will be around for more than two hours means they must have many more flaws they can work through) but it is obviously possible to have eminently likeable characters even on a long-running series. Either the writers really are going from a first draft, or they're just not talented enough to pull the genre fusion off. Sadly, I'm going with the second option.

    November 17, 2010 at 1:33PM EST Reply to Comment


  • I think most people that watch Glee can agree with what you said. I think you are off though, in that the show is about the production numbers. It's why everyone watches the show. I enjoy the soapy drama that surrounds it, but it's basically just to have some basic connective tissue from set piece to set piece. I think that they have a basic idea for the entire season and are more actively searching out music and dance routines to support that. So the reason it seems like a Schizoid wannabe Dance Teacher's fever dream is because it probably is, but his name isn't Will Schuester it's Ryan Murphy.

    November 17, 2010 at 1:54PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Bergie

    People.....it's a TV SHOW!! Either enjoy it or don't watch it. Or when criticizing it.....remember that it's a TV SHOW!!

    November 17, 2010 at 1:54PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Dryden Thank you! I kept thinking it was taco and was trying to eat my screen. Now that I have the proper context I can hopefully get more out of it.

      November 17, 2010 at 2:31PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Rich in G'burg

    The key to enjoying Glee, for me at least, is to suspend my disbelief the same way I do when I see a Broadway musical. The plots of individual episodes of Glee are really not any less plausible than the plot of any typical Broadway musical, and the production values are somewhat similar as well.

    November 17, 2010 at 4:00PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Sue THANK YOU! I tried explaining this to my husband last night as he said for the umpteenth time "Where would a high school get the budget for these performances?!" I don't watch Glee to pick it apart and try to find the intellegent and articulate plotlines...i watch it for pure enjoyment, and because really there aren't that many shows these days that provide it. Yes, the characters are one dimensional many times, but on how many other TV shows within this genre (especially with such a large cast) can we really say that a character is "fleshed out"?

      And really, if you aren't that big a fan of the show, my dear critic, I'll be happy to trade jobs with you. After reading peoples sob stories and tragedies all day, Glee is a refreshing break from the real world.

      November 17, 2010 at 4:37PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Frustrated

    You've quite accurately identified what is wrong with Glee this season. There are too many storylines and too many characters which has lead to underdeveloped characters and storylines and a complete lack of continuity. I'm all for suspending belief as a viewer, but Glee has a staff of supposedly professional writers. They need to start putting in more effort if they expect us to keep tuning in.

    November 17, 2010 at 5:04PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    RicM

    I intentionally avoided watching Glee because of all the hype surrounding it, because of the word 'Gleeks' and well....just because. I was flipping channel yesterday and happened to catch Gwyneth Paltrow, whom I loved in 'Duets' (among other movies)so I stopped to see why this was so. To my surprise, I was watching Glee and I will say, I did enjoy it overall.

    The show was better than I thought it would be and Jane Lynch was just as funny as I would expect her to be, which is hella lot. I loved Gwyneth's rendition of Cee-Lo's 'Forget You'. The Nowadays scene at the end of Chicago was one of my favorites in the movie and I was thrilled to see it performed on the show. I even liked the 'Singing in the Rain' performance.

    All this being said, this article is dead-on about the show's flaws. I immediately noticed the haphazard way in which plot lines were thrown around and then hastily tied up. The Tater Tots subplot was just plain stupid. When Will lost his job, I thought, "Wow. Is Gwyn going to be on the show?" all of a sudden, Will's back and she's out and I'm thinking, "WTF was the point of this subplot then?"

    I might just watch the show next week to see if it can sustain my interest but I will say this, I did download the Gwyn's songs from teh show. She was incredible....and Hot! Aye, yay, yay!

    November 18, 2010 at 9:16PM EST Reply to Comment


  • Really great episode, though not perfect. Some thoughts:

    Paltrow knocked this one out of the park. I was impressed.

    I've never thought of Will as the "hero" of this show. I like the word "protagonist" better, because with that word it's easier to accept that while he's a main character, he can still be deeply flawed -- just like *everyone* else in the show. And I appreciate that everyone on this show is far from perfect. Sue's a great antagonist for Will because while see seems evil to the core, we occasionally catch a glimpse that despite her evil ways, she still just *might* be a better teacher than Will. Maybe. Probably not. But maybe.

    I’ll agree with you that there was too much going on in this one. The Mercedes/Kurt storyline had a few nice bits (like Mercedes' Norma Rae moment, and Kurt/Blaine's gay-gay-gay conversation), but it did feel like some plot from an unused script got folded into this episode for some reason, so it never felt like part of this episode’s narrative. But I don’t have a problem at all with them briefly touching on the Kurt/bully story. It wasn’t a big plot point, but seems to set up something later, and it was nice for them to follow up on it.

    As for the musical numbers: you really don’t have any ability to suspend disbelief, do you? A stunning, fun musical number, and yet you’re thinking about how could they afford that set on a school budget? You must be super fun at parties, Debbie Downer!

    … and finally…

    "Mary Todd Lincoln in the house! My husband was probably gay and I'm bipolar, which makes me yell things like 'That teapot's spreading lies about me,' or "That can't be my baby because I don't love it!" -- AWESOME!

    November 19, 2010 at 5:22PM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on Breaking News

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web