'Smash' Is a Drama for Adults

All of the central characters are people working at jobs. They're creative, highly skilled jobs for which few people are qualified, but they are jobs nonetheless.


Airtime: Mondays, 10pm ET
Cast: Debra Messing, Jack Davenport, Katherine McPhee, Christian Borle, Megan Hilty, Raza Jaffrey, Jaime Cepero, Anjelica Huston
Subtitle: Series Premiere
Network: NBC
Creator: Theresa Rebeck
Air date: 2012-02-06

Smash is not Glee.

The urge to compare them is understandable: there just aren’t that many television shows where the cast routinely breaks into song. Both shows have a true love for musical theater and its fans. Btu, where Glee is a frothy, candy-colored romp, Smash is an earnest drama without much sign of a sense of humor. The high school kids in Glee (and many of their teachers) sing anywhere and everywhere. The singing in Smash, at least in the first two episodes, occurs under more realistic circumstances, that is, performances by professionals at auditions or in shows.

Smash shares more in common with another recent show about the nuts and bolts of creating expensive and highly scrutinized entertainment, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. If Smash lacks the benefit of Aaron Sorkin’s hyper-literate and unmistakable dialogue, it follows Studio 60's format, observing the producers, writers, and actors who collaborate on a show, particularly what happens backstage. Smash's show is a Broadway musical, and its story begins when a successful writing team -- Julia (Debra Messing) and Tom (Christian Borle) -- pen a song about Marilyn Monroe. A leaked version of the song attracts the attention of wealthy producer Eileen Rand (Anjelica Huston), who brings in famous director/choreographer Derek Wills (Jack Davenport).

Soon a team has formed and they're casting their star. They narrow down their search for Marilyn to two actresses: Ivy (Megan Hilty), a sultry blonde Broadway veteran who is still looking for her starring role, and Karen (Kathryn McPhee), an ingénue from Iowa with a big voice. Their competition provides Smash with the potential for soap operatic plotting. But in the first two episodes, the cattiness is minimal and both Ivy and Karen are three-dimensional characters, sympathetic and appealing.

As Smash follows up on its much-publicized premiere -- "the night after the Super Bowl!" -- and proceeds on a weekly basis, we'll see more auditions, as well as workshops and rehearsals. Already the series evinces reverence for the musical itself but, thankfully, not for the process of creating it. All of the central characters are people working at jobs. They're creative, highly skilled jobs for which few people are qualified, but they are jobs nonetheless.

Again, this is very similar to the approach of Studio 60. But in Smash, the workers have lives outside of their jobs. Julia and her husband, Frank (Brian D’Arcy James), are trying to adopt a baby from China. Karen’s boyfriend (Raza Jaffrey) is supportive of her dreams until they start to interfere with his. Eileen is in the middle of a bitter divorce that threatens to take away her wealth and therefore her means to produce the show. So far, Derek's extracurricular activities look a little too familiar, that is, he's your garden-variety brilliant philanderer.

The subtext of all of these stories is that the lure of the project -- embodied by Marilyn Monroe -- is addictive and all-encompassing enough to threaten everything else in the participants' lives. All are attracted by the rush produced by working on the show.

In this, again, Smash may appeal to fans of both Glee and Studio 60. For the first, it features original songs that are catchy enough to believe they could be in a hit musical, while the covers, like Blondie’s "Call Me," are well chosen and realized. For the second, this is a respectable drama designed for adults, without a hint of snark. Glee is (or was) a hit and Studio 60 was not. And that may be the rub for Smash. Non-procedural dramas with adults in mind remain rare on network TV.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.