Sunday, November 16, 2014

Movie Musicals That Got It Wrong: Jersey Boys

Okay, it was finally available On Demand, so I watched it.  My impression was the same as when I saw the stage musical: Eh.

Though at least Jersey Boys the stage musical had color, an infectious energy, and a lot of songs from the Four Seasons and Frankie Valli catalogue.  At times, it gave hints of attempting to be more serious, but then was like, "Nah!  Time for the next hit number!"  The movie (directed by Clint Eastwood), by contrast, tries to be dramatic and meaningful, but ends up flat.

Plot Synopsis

For large stretches, Jersey Boys seems to think it's Backbeat, the gritty story of an up-and-coming band, only in this case, a band that is far less musically interesting and consequential.  Jersey Boys follows the formation and breakup of the Four Seasons in the 50s and 60s, a band consisting of Tommy DeVito, Nick Massi, Bob Gaudio, and Frankie Valli, aka "the Special One."  Tommy, Nick, and Frankie are blue collar Italian boys living in "Joisey," pulling off crimes that land them in jail for a few months at a time.  In between, they play in a band formed by Tommy.  Tommy recognizes that Frankie is Special, what with his ability to make his voice all weird and girly with his falsetto, and establishes him as lead singer.  Once singer-songwriting prodigy Bob Gaudio joins, the group is complete.  The Four Seasons go on to record hit after hit (as shown in this real life medley of the group), before tensions inevitably tear the band apart.

The Good

Songs and Singing.  At least the movie adaptation of a jukebox musical doesn't ruin the songs on which the musical is based.  Many audience members (even those born well after the Four Seasons broke up) will recognize tunes like "Big Girls Don't Cry" and "Walk Like a Man."  To the movie's credit, they are sung live rather than pre-recorded, and it adds some much-needed spontaneity.  And John Lloyd Young, who originated the role of Frankie Valli on Broadway, does have a voice eerily similar to the real Valli's voice.  

It Wasn't As Bad As Rock of Ages.  Really, it wasn't.  Jersey Boys at least meets the threshold of respectability, which is more than I could say of certain other jukebox musicals.  Though Rock of Ages had at least a bit of an interesting angle with hair metal and... nope, never mind, not gonna give it any credit.  It just sucked.

The Bad

Flat Story.  An interesting story could have been formed about the Four Seasons, even if they weren't the most consequential band of the 60s.  For instance, rather than focus on Valli, whose life (as portrayed) is less than compelling, the story could have focused on Bob Gaudio, who recorded his first hit as a teenager ("Short Shorts") and entered the band much, much younger than his bandmates.  (Nick Massi, the oldest, was 15 years older.)  It would have been interesting to portray Gaudio's prior experience with music, followed by his experience living and touring with much older, not necessarily very nice men.

That said, even a band story that follows the usual rise-and-fall cliches could have been worthwhile.  In some respects, Jersey Boys is highly similar to Dreamgirls.  Only in the latter's case, it also has the (somewhat fictionalized) rise of Motown, as well as more energy, color, and emotion.  Jersey Boys does not adopt any unique angle -- not even one about the mob's influence on the music business -- and barely tries to make you care about the band as a whole before it breaks up.
   
Flat Characters.  Much of what is wrong with the story is due to the lack of decent characterization.  Vincent Piazza is a highlight as DeVito, but he's given so little to work with.  He's just a charismatic dirtbag who eventually fuels the band's demise.  Valli, the central character of the movie, just has affairs and a half-hearted relationship with his teenage daughter (likely only to build empathy for when she dies of a drug overdose).  There is no sense that he wants something more or offers something new, apart from his Angelic voice.  Same goes for the other characters.  In real life, the band had appeared on Ed Sullivan (as the Four Lovers) before Gaudio even joined, so there must have been something driving them.  In the movie, singing is like some hobby they have on the side until Gaudio comes along.  There's no sense of chemistry or shared history with these characters.  They get together because the plot demands it and then they break up.

Flat Setting.  The setting, somber acting style, and color scheme might have been appropriate if this were, say, The Fighter.  Or another Clint Eastwood project like Million Dollar Baby.  Here, it absolutely drags the movie down.  As with Mamma Mia!, the only thing that might have made this movie enjoyable was more color and sparkle, not less.     

Lack of Context.  The 60s was possibly the 20th Century's most revolutionary decade in music, yet you would never know it from this movie.  Beatles who?  Bob Dylan?  Motown?  It might have been interesting to watch the Four Seasons struggle to stay relevant until their breakup in 1966, but only one other band is even mentioned in Jersey Boys, and that is a female singing group, the Angels.  I think there was more cultural context in That Thing You Do.

Conclusion

While the source material was never great, Jersey Boys did itself no favors by toning down the boisterous pop tunes and pretending to be The Godfather.  Instead of being an infectious movie with tunes that you were singing as you left the theatre,* it's a gray, gritty picture about people we have no reason to care for.

* Well, except for the final number, which actually looked and sounded like it came from a musical.





Other Movie Musicals That Got It Wrong: The Phantom of the Opera, Evita, RENT, Across the Universe, Rock of Ages, Hairspray

Movie Musicals That Got It Right: Dreamgirls, Les Miserables, Chicago, Mamma

The above images are used under the Fair Use Doctrine.

Monday, November 10, 2014

Novel Update: Milestone Achieved!



Ladies and gentlemen, breaking news!

My novel has finally reached a milestone: 120,000 words.

You can see my efforts documented here.

With the holidays approaching, I'm not sure whether I'll start querying agents now, or wait until the beginning of next year.  I'm leaning toward the latter.

One reason is because in other breaking news..............

I've begun writing the sequel!

Maybe that sounds too soon, but when you've been waiting for over a year to write it, believe me, it's really not.  Oh sweet, sweet new pages, and just in time for National Novel Writing Month, too.

So anyway, just wanted to give you that update.  I will be back with a normal one next time.

Friday, October 31, 2014

My 80s Childhood Scarred Me

Cute, plucky kid who went through some mighty 
disturbing shit.  

When I was a kid, for one year, I had a stalker.  I don't know how or why, just that an older man became interested in me and would call my house on a semi-regular basis.  When he got me on the phone, he would ask me questions in a very creepy voice that I still remember to this day.  He claimed to be a friend of my father's, yet when I gave the phone to my dad, he would inevitably get a dial tone.  One day it started and then one day, just as mysteriously, it stopped.

And I didn't think about it again for years.

Until recently, when I stopped to think just how fucked up that was.  Where were my parents?  I never answered the phone, so how did they just decide it was okay for an adult male to speak to their child?  My mom claims that she doesn't recall that sequence of events at all.  I recall as a kid feeling that something was wrong, but I couldn't understand it.

The question is why, as I grew into adulthood, it took me so long to revisit that time in my youth and wonder what the hell happened.  Now I think I know the answer.  I didn't think anything of it because, to me, it was just part of what childhood in the 1980s was all about.

So, nostalgia has you thinking that the 80s was such a great time?  Oh no.  As a kid, I was blasted with the message that everything was definitely not okay.  Drug dealers were waiting to sell me cocaine on the playground.  Kids were getting kidnapped right and left.  Graffiti was everywhere because people had no respect for anything, unlike in the 1950s when everything was clean and pure.  (See Back to the Future for an example.)  We were latchkey kids expected to come home to an empty house and deal.

And if we somehow escaped all that unscathed, we were just going to get nuked into oblivion by the Soviets anyway.  Because perestroika-smerastroika.  And if we weren't, our country would be taken over by the Japanese and we would be turned into their pets.

While Saturday morning cartoons were relatively sane, the rest of television was far from safe.  It was an age of after school specials that featured kids ODing on drugs and committing suicide, and "very special episodes" on otherwise non-threatening sitcoms.  I learned that "rape can happen to YOU too" on The Facts of Life and Different Strokes, that your favorite relative could become a violent, raging monster on Family Ties, and that nice little kids could get AIDs and become social pariahs on Mr. Belvedere.

And Punky Brewster.  My God, Punky Brewster...

On the surface, Punky Brewster seemed like a cute show about a spunky kid, her grouchy foster dad, and her friends.  But take a look at this string of episodes from Season Two:

216: Punky's friend Cherie gets trapped in a refrigerator and almost dies.

217: Punky's foster dad, Henry, loses his photography studio to a fire and winds up in the hospital with a life-threatening ulcer, while Punky is dragged away to an orphanage.  This one's a five-parter!

222: Punky watches the Challenger explode, live on TV.

So basically, seven weeks of uninterrupted misery.  And that's not even considering other Season Two episodes like the one where Punky befriends a girl who was kidnapped by her father and forced to change her name, or the one where Punky worries about Henry being murdered by a serial killer.  Even the premise of Punky Brewster is a downer: plucky kid manages to survive being abandoned by her mother after her father abandoned both of them.  Yay?

As an adult today, you can bet that Punky is still plucky and full of life during her weekly therapy sessions.

But that was the stuff I grew up with.  I can't say that it was definitely worse than childhood in other eras.  For instance, those born shortly before or after 9-11 may grow up with a very dark view of the world, believing that nothing is safe, that even going to school could lead to your demise.  That said, I would bet my worldview is markedly darker than that of someone whose childhood took place in the 1990s.  From what I recall, most of the dark, disturbing shit in the 90s, like Columbine, took place late in the decade.  Before that, the biggest concerns were apathy and that the world could be... too peaceful?

So why would I question some dark weird thing happening to me as a kid?  It was just par for the course growing up during the 80s.  I mean, at least I wasn't ODing on drugs or getting kidnapped.



Man, childhood sucked.

The above image was used under the Fair Use Doctrine.    

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Novel Update: I Came, I Saw, I LitCrawled



So last Saturday, I had what might be considered my first promotional event.

Saturday night marked the end of a full week's events in the San Francisco Bay Area known as LitQuake.  LitQuake is some sort of harvest festival for people who love to read.  I really don't know how else to describe it.  It started with a an official launch party on Friday the 10th, then showcased reading and writing events all over the Bay Area.  The piece de resistance was LitCrawl, a 3.5-hour event in San Francisco that was capped with a closing party.

LitCrawl occurred in phases.  Phase One lasted from 6 to 7 pm.  Phase Two lasted from 7:15 to 8:15 pm.  Phase Three lasted from 8:30 to 9:30 pm.  My reading was part of Phase Three.  Each Phase took place in two dozen different San Francisco venues, mainly along Valencia Street between 16th and Mission and 21st and Mission.  

How did I volunteer to be part of such a massive event?  Mainly by accident.  I was at a Historical Novel Society meeting back in the spring and volunteered to be part of the event.  Hey, anything for exposure, right?  Well, except that I thought I would be handing out leaflets or manning a booth, not *GULP* reading to an audience.  What if I chose the wrong section, one without any drama or action?

I just decided to go for it.  I chose a section of the novel I thought would work for a 10-minute read (the first Arthur chapter, the one before this one) and hopped on BART for my merry journey.

I arrived early and was able to attend one Phase Two event, in a large bar/restaurant/music venue called The Chapel.  Chairs lined the stage and there were several rows of chairs in the audience.  And they were filling up fast.  The theme was the Four Elements.  Soon, multiple writers were seated on the stage, where an MC introduced them.  Holly crap, they had an MC??  She had a prepared routine with jokes and everything.  And each person she introduced sounded as if they had descended from the highest ranks of writerdom.  Contributed to the Atlantic, Publisher's Weekly, won this prize or that prize.  I became painfully aware of the fact that among the group of historical novel readers, I was the only one who wasn't unpublished.

That said, the writers were all humble and funny, and not the slightest bit intimidating.  But man, that place was full.  By the time I left, there was not an empty chair, and people were packed in the back besides.  By contrast, my reading venue was of a more modest size, but that actually suited me better.  I think I would have wet myself if I had to sit up on a stage and face an audience that size.  My location was in the Antelope, a boutique for women's accessories, many of which were antiquated enough that it seemed like a fitting setting for historical fiction readings.

People began trickling into the venue before the official start time.  I awkwardly placed the fliers that I'd whipped up (advertising this blog!) near the front for them to take.  After some chatting with my fellow readers, each of whom is awesome and whose works I will link to here, it was time to read at last.  There was no stage or rows of chairs; just a microphone, and people sat wherever there was room.  It felt more intimate and somehow more literary that way.

Anyway, I was the second person to read, and it was... fine.  I had to look down the entire time, and I don't think I read for as long as I could have, but when I finished, the audience gasped.  I ended on a dramatic line, so that was a good sign; it meant that I had their attention.

In the end, it didn't lead to a surge in emails or inquiries.  Most of my fliers remained where I left them.  But I felt cool.  I felt literary.  I felt like a real writer.

Can't wait to go again next year!    

The above image was taken by juliaf and is royalty free.

Sunday, October 12, 2014

Blog Update: Time For My Usual "I'm Still Here" Post

Once again, with new job and lots of writing stuff going on, I haven't had time to do a lot of updating.  Next week I will be taking part in the San Francisco Lit Crawl, which I will blog about afterward, and I have various other posts in progress.  One thing I'm going to do not this month, but when it finally concludes (sniff!) is a revisiting of my The Legend of Korra post, to give my expanded thoughts not only on the series, but on the entire Avatar universe as a whole (including Avatar: The Last Airbender).  In the meantime, enjoy this trailer from The Legend of Korra, Season Four.


Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Les Miserables the Movie: The Rewatch

I had no special reason for posting this, except that I decided this past weekend to rewatch the Les Miserables movie, having not watched it for a while.  I was curious to see whether my impressions of it have changed.

Overall, while I'm not as wildly over the moon about the Les Miz movie as when it premiered, I still find it to be a worthwhile production.  Several have criticized Tom Hooper for failing to go larger than life with it, like in the stage production, with a barricade the length of a football field.  However, I think his choice to make it gritty and closer to the source material is commendable.  It would have been easy to follow the blueprint of the glossy costume musical, where the peasants' clothes glow brightly, there is not a speck of mud on the ground, and the players mime along to lyrics during elaborate dance numbers.  Hooper made some notable deviations, and they mostly paid off.  If his choices aren't better valued, it may be for the reasons I criticized the movie in the first place: the pacing, handheld camera, and the editing.  

1.  First, let me say that pacing is a problem both in the movie and in the current stage production.  Les Miserables is meant to be long.  LONG.  It's a huge-ass book and it began as a huge-ass musical of 3.5 hours.  While I understand (if not support) the reasons why they trimmed the stage production to below three hours -- due to actor union contract requirements -- there is no reason the movie version could not have been three hours.

Two hours and 30 minutes is already a long time.  What is a half-hour more?  People complain that the movie already feels too long, but one reason is because so much is crammed together in such a short amount of time (especially the first hour, which spans a good decade).  Conversely, they might be less inclined to think that way if certain scenes were allowed to breathe.  Or they're just lamers who were never going to like this movie anyway.  Go watch The Hobbit instead.  Oh never mind, that's three hours for just one installment.  Certainly a slim children's book is more deserving of a nine-hour extravaganza than a 1,500-page novel.

Which is to say: the Les Miserables movie needs to be longer.

2.  The editing sucks.  I said it before and I'll say it again.  Too many transitions are needlessly jarring because Hooper did not bother to create establishing shots.  Take, for example, the transition from dead Fantine to Cosette sweeping -- just bizarre.  Or from Marius and Eponine to a close-up of Cosette's face... somewhere.  Her bedroom?  The convent?  Who knows?  The worst transition of all, though, may be the one from Eponine post-"Heart Full of Love" to Thenardier and his gang about to rob Valjean and Cosette's house.

3.  The close-up shaky cam sucks.  It leeches any majesty from a scene, such as group singing scene in the ABC Cafe.  While I don't mind Hooper's signature wide-angled close-ups, I do mind that there aren't more still wide shots establishing the location.  See No. 2.

4.  Ever since someone suggested it, I cannot stop fantasizing about a Les Miserables movie starring Patrick Wilson as Valjean and Hugh Jackman as Javert.  Wilson would probably have been a less interesting Valjean than Jackman was, but his voice would have been up to the role.  Meanwhile, Jackman could have been a fabulous Javert, rigid and angsty like the best Javerts of the stage.

5.  That said, while Russell Crowe's singing was pretty bad at certain points, as I noted before, there were times when he sounded perfectly fine, such as "Another brawl in the square..."

6.  While I like Amanda Seyfried, adult Cosette was one case where the movie could have cast a talented unknown and lost nothing, even if her "spark" was not quite as bright.

7.  Hooper really doesn't like the Eponine role.  He probably would have cut "On My Own" if he could.  As it is, where it's set disrupts the usual momentum of the musical, where we go from the botched attack on Valjean's home to "One Day More."

8.  Eponine walking around in a sudden downpour looks silly.

9.  While Eddie Redmayne does not sing as effortlessly as the stage performers around him, his voice displays some power and he hits some absolutely gorgeous notes.

10. And yes, when Marius asks Gavroche to deliver the letter to Cosette in a scene right after Eponine's death, it does look callous, no matter what Hooper thinks.

11. The students/barricade scenes still are the best part of the movie.  Not only are they dynamic and fun, but they give the musical a chance to breathe, an opportunity it didn't have as we rushed from young Valjean to Fantine to dead Fantine to Cosette to Paris to... etc., etc.    

Overall, I still hold out hope for an extended cut that could cure some, though not all, of the problems I've had with the movie.  Next year will be the Les Miserables 30th Anniversary.  Dare we hope?

The above image is used under the Fair Use Doctrine.

Sunday, September 28, 2014

Through an Introvert's Lens: Roseanne

For about its first five seasons, Roseanne (1988-1997) was a revelation.  Those put off by Roseanne Barr's abrasive personality missed one of the few television shows (let alone sitcoms) to portray family and the working class in a realistic manner.

You just didn't see shows like this on the air.  Its fellow sitcoms included The Cosby Show and Growing Pains, both shows involving well-to-do families with large, impossibly neat houses.  Whereas Roseanne and Dan Conner's house looked like the house you might have: an old, faded afghan covering a worn-out couch; magazines strewn over the coffee table; odds and ends crowding a desk in the background.

And their family seemed like one you (or *cough* at least I) might have as well.  Not one where the kids were endlessly subservient to, and stupider than, the parents, like on The Cosby Show.  Becky and Darlene fought with their parents, sometimes viciously.  They fought with each other the same way.  They frequently derided and ignored their younger brother, DJ.  Yet the family also had wonderful bonding moments, individually and as a family, that somehow seemed sweeter because you knew that they were also capable of being cruel.   

And the show was funny, so funny.  Roseanne's war with her neighbor Kathy.  The Halloween episodes.  The diner episodes.  Jackie doing... anything (at least until she became a caricature of herself in later seasons).  Roseanne and Dan's reaction to Becky's boyfriend, Mark.  And so on.

I'm not doing the show justice with my description, but just wanted to give you an idea.  Anyone who bases their view of Roseanne on its last dreadful seasons, or on Roseanne Barr's off-screen antics or *shudder* Tom Arnold, is missing out on something truly special.  Roseanne was at least watchable midway through its sixth season, when its big shark-jumping moment happened with the casting of "new" Becky, Sarah Chalke, in place of Lecy Goranson.  It's not that Chalke was so bad in the role, but her persona was markedly different from Goranson's Becky.  Also gone was the believable sibling chemistry between Goranson's Becky and Sara Gilbert's Darlene, or Goranson's chemistry with the rest of the cast.  The Conners ceased to feel quite as much like a family, and that problem would only grow worse as the show continued.

Um, Isn't This Article Supposed to Be About Introverts?

I just was getting to that.  When one thinks of introverts on Roseanne, Darlene Conner almost immediately springs to mind.  She was Daria before Daria existed.  To reiterate the generalities about introversion, introverts tend to be:

  • reserved
  • interested in big ideas rather than small talk
  • needs to be alone to replenish after socializing
  • thinks before he/she speaks
  • prefers to observe rather than be the center of attention

As applied to Darlene: check, partial check, check, not sure, check.  Which is to say that Darlene carries a lot of introverted traits.  She wears all black and likes to sit alone in her room, reading or writing.  With other people, she stands there in a dry, detached manner, before launching a sardonic quip, like so:



She doesn't care about impressing people.  She doesn't even seem to like people most of the time.  If she could live in her room forever, she would probably be happy.

The interesting thing is, that description only applies to Darlene from midway through Season Four onward.  From Season Five especially, she is the sarcastic Goth writer.  But before then?

She was a joker and a jock.  While not super-popular, you never got the impression that she was unpopular.  Pre-Season Four Darlene seemed pretty happy-go-lucky, at least compared to the moodier Becky.  From time to time you got a sense that there was something deeper and more contemplative there, such as the Season Two episode where Darlene had to deliver the poem.  But otherwise, Darlene the introverted writer was treated as a personality change, specifically in the Season Four episode "Darlene Fades to Black."  In that episode, Darlene's loss of interest in sports, and sudden interest in book shops, was treated like the onset of depression.

Would a person who is naturally introverted just change like that?  Forget the obvious explanation, that the writers just started to write Darlene differently.  Could a naturally introverted person act chirpy and perky and then change to moody and contemplative?  Maybe, if you accept that the more social personality was a mask for the more introverted one.  Many introverts become skilled at faking extroversion, acting as though they could be social forever when, in fact, it wipes them out.

Then again, even joker jock Darlene was never super extroverted.  We never saw her be the life of the party, just making quips at her family's expense much of the time.  And it's a bit of a stereotype that introverted people are always unhappy and moody.  It's possible for an introverted person to be generally happy, and to express that happiness, just in an introverted way.  Therefore, it's possible that Darlene Conner was always an introvert, even while her pre-Season Four jokey persona seemed to suggest she was not.              

That being said, is she the only introvert in the Conner household?

Probably not.  Becky could be an introvert as well, depending upon which actress plays her.  As played by Lecy Goranson, even though she is popular, she is also serious, a good student, and cares about big issues, like the environment.  As played by Sarah Chalke, she loves Mark and likes being happy... and stuff.  There is such a depth gap between the two actresses' portrayals that the show even made a joking number about it (starts at 1:04):


Based on the first five seasons (since I refuse to admit the last three, at least, even exist), it's definitely possible that Becky is an introvert.  While we don't see that she prefers to spend time in her room recovering from social situations, she has gone to her room to contemplate the deep issues.

But one Conner I think could definitely be an introvert is DJ.  He is frequently by himself, doesn't talk a whole lot, and enjoys activities that often defy his family's understanding.  As he gets older, he takes an interest in film making.  DJ tends to be deemphasized as a character, which accounts for part of his absence.  But you could just as easily argue that he doesn't appear often on screen because hey, he'd rather be off doing his own thing.

Roseanne and Dan, though?  Nah.  Despite the occasional claims that she should have been a writer, Roseanne rarely goes off by herself to write and seems to gain energy from interacting with other characters.  Dan, too, seems to like to hang out with other men, bonding over men stuff... and stuff.  It's tough to tell with Jackie, since we mainly see her only when she comes over to interact with Roseanne or the family.

How Does Roseanne Treat Introverts?

Going by the way Darlene is treated, pretty well.  While Roseanne initially expresses concern about Darlene's growing introversion, she realizes that the best thing she can do is respect Darlene's wishes to be left alone.  She also respects Darlene's goals, going so far as convincing her to go to art school (after initially opposing it) when Darlene is reluctant due to fear.  The show itself never treats Darlene's wishes like they are trivial or beyond a "normal" person's understanding.

Likewise, Becky's point of view is usually treated with respect, even when she is being absolutely horrible (no one could throw a good, realistic teenage temper tantrum like Lecy's Becky).  Compare this with the Huxtable kids on The Cosby Show, who are too-frequently treated like props for Bill Cosby's standup routine.

DJ, on the other hand, does not come across as well.  Much of this may have been due to the fact that Roseanne Barr understood girls better and wanted to emphasize the older girl characters more (not to mention Michael Fishman's more limited acting skills), but DJ is frequently treated as the "weird" kid.  Not just weird, but so quiet, he is forgotten on more than one occasion.  (In one episode, he points out that he hadn't spoken for two days, but no one noticed.)  

Then there is David, Darlene's boyfriend.  David is quiet and sensitive, possibly more introverted than Darlene.  While in the atrocious later seasons, these qualities would lead to David being treated like a wimpy girly putz, in Seasons Four and Five, his point of view tends to be treated with respect (by the show, at least, if not by Darlene).

On the whole, Roseanne (the good seasons, anyway) seems to respect characters' desire to be alone to think and create.  Pretty impressive for a show that gets such charge from character interactions.

Conclusion

To sum up, how does Roseanne treat introverts?

Number of Introverts: As many as three.  Four if you count David.

Is the Introvert Prominent?: Yes.

Is the Introvert Active?: Yes.

How Do the Other Characters Treat the Introvert: Mostly with respect, though sometimes (in the case of male characters, especially DJ) with derision.  That might say more about Roseanne's view of men than it does about its view of introverts.

I would encourage anyone who hasn't to check out Roseanne.  Just accept that the show ends after the eighth episode of Season Six.

Now to end with the best moments of Darlene and Becky.  Just because.




The above images are used under the Fair Use Doctrine.