Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Movie Mix

ShowTime's Weeds: Suburbia, Drugs and Mary-Louise Parker’s Ass

By Sheerly Avni, Las Vegas Weekly. Posted August 13, 2007.


ShowTime's Weeds, one of the smartest shows on TV, puffs its way to a third season, with the premiere airing on Monday night.
Advertisement

The first episode of Weeds airs Monday, August 13, on ShowTime.

Mary-Louise Parker has a really nice ass.

You probably know this already, perhaps because you've seen the first two seasons of Weeds, in which the doe-eyed Parker plays Nancy Botwin, a suburban housewife of certain beauty and uncertain age who turns to drug dealing to support her family after her husband dies of a heart attack. The power of the Botwin "ba-donk-a-donk," as more than one character has called it with a heaving sigh, is by now a well-established fact.

Or you might know it from the show's most recent publicity posters, which feature a luminous Parker, shot from the back with a snake coiled around her luminous body, head poised mid-strike as if he, like the viewer, can't decide which part of her to attack first. There must be symbolism at work here -- greed or temptation or sin or something -- but when it's wrapped around a body like that, who gives a damn about the snake?

And herein lies the problem, as Weeds puffs its way into a third season. When last we left the good widow Botwin, she'd finally landed in a situation none of her charms could get her out of: frozen in a pre-fab kitchen, with a circle of AK-47s pointing at her pale pretty head. A group of hostile Armenians had assassinated her blackmailing Federal Agent ex-boyfriend and were sharing shoot-to-kill privileges with an unethical black gangsta named U-Turn; her own teenage son Silas had stolen the stash she needed to pay off her debts; her younger son Shane had absconded in a van with her feckless brother-in-law's psychotic Alaskan girlfriend, who in turn was running from a tank-sized bounty hunter named, and why not, Obumchuck.

Following all this? If not, then stop reading now and Netflix the first two seasons. It's worth it: For the past two years, Weeds has been one of the smartest shows on television, combining the scathing satire of Curb Your Enthusiasm with the situational absurdity of Arrested Development.

Nancy Botwin's troubles almost seemed secondary to what was really just the brilliant supporting cast's series of high farce set pieces, which skewered suburban values. In the imagined housing development of Agrestic, an affluent town as corrupt and hypocritical as its pools are well-appointed and inviting, Botwin's neighbors were the true stars: Saturday Night Live alum Kevin Nealon as an amoral and perpetually stoned accountant; Tonye Patano as Botwin's formidable supplier, a tough-talking matron from the wrong (read: black) side of the tracks; The 40-Year-Old Virgin's Romany Malco as her ambitious nephew, a love-struck grower with plans of his own; and finally, the magnificently bitchy Elizabeth Perkins as Celia Hodes, an acid-tongued PTA mom whose own formidable assets are so perpetually on display that they may soon begin demanding their own twin trailers.

Watching these nimrods grope and choke their way through grow-houses, city-planning meetings and absurd extramarital affairs would have in itself been enough to make Weeds a stoner-friendly cult show, full of hip references to antidrug legislation, indica/sativa blends and dumb guys eating dumber food after a few really good bong hits. But Weeds aspires to much more, and frequently attains it. Like Big Love, The Sopranos and The Riches, it is also about a family living outside the law and so derives a good deal of its comedic and dramatic punch from the combination of internal and external threats the family copes with.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: hbo, weeds, mary-louise parker

Sheerly Avni is a San Francisco-based writer.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Who forgot to proof read this article!?
Posted by: srotman on Aug 13, 2007 1:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Um... last I checked Weeds is NOT an HBO production. In fact it never has been. The article makes a point of comparing Weeds to other HBO series but inaccurately assumes it too is an HBO production. Weeds is a Showtime production. Please do your homework next time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

shut off your TV
Posted by: kelt65 on Aug 13, 2007 2:41 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've never seen this but it sounds utterly stupid to me, another pointless conversational topic for vacuous hipsters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» light(en) up Posted by: schnoggi
» RE: shut off your TV Posted by: maestra
» RE: shut off your TV Posted by: Saitia
TV is the most DANGEROUS drug compared to weed !
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 13, 2007 4:23 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope that is what the author is admitting because otherwise this article is filled with too much BULLSHIT. Paying money to HBO means giving more money to Rupert Murdoch !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is great stuff....
Posted by: christastropher on Aug 13, 2007 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's way fluffier than what's currently in my pillows. Thanks Alternet!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Vehicle for Progress? Hardly
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Aug 13, 2007 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't seen Weeds, but just from reading this review a number of objections come to mind:

a) Racism--the portrayal of African-Americans and Armenians (men at any rate) as gangsters and criminals

b) Engendering sympathy for characters with anti-social manerisms--life is hardly so tough in the US that one can excuse selling drugs as a means of survival (I do admit that many legitimate jobs are just as unethical, however)

c) Objectification of women--granted the lead is a woman (a sign of progress!), but one who aparently was cast mostly for her "T and A"

I will conceed that in fact the show probably has some dramatic value (the most important thing in my opinion); but politically it is reactionary and this is fact would seem to contradict the claim the author of the review is making (if she had a point at all).

By the way: maybe there is a way films can be made that makes them a tool affecting progess as opposed to functioning mainly as a propaganda device (by enabling intelligent thinking as opposed to killing thought, i.e.), but this method has yet to be discovered (even the Modernist heros failed in this respect).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New rule. Don't comment unless you have seen at least 1 episode.
Posted by: Tombo on Aug 13, 2007 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is it with all of these comments by people who haven't even seen the show? All this reveals is your own weakness for jumping to conclusions founded on baseless assumptions and prejudices. Real progressive of you! How about everybody refrain from commenting unless you actually know what you are talking about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Excellent point. Posted by: may261989
Weeds Must Be Seen To Understand!
Posted by: felixcommi on Aug 13, 2007 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The show did not start out as anything to do with "T n A". Parker (Mother Botwin). The show has biting satire about the war in Iraq. Possibly better comments than any other show I've seen presently. The politics on the show are incredibly well expressed.

The "T n A" stuff is more of an illumation of the vulnerability of poor women within these "outside the law" communities. The "T n A" makes you deplore machismo, patriarchy, and sexual exploitation much more than it arouses. If the stuff in the show seems arousing then you're likely very misogynistic. You need to see the show to appreciate. So go watch it then comment. It is an absolutely brilliant show.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dude your article was lamely fact checked.
Posted by: techphile on Aug 13, 2007 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you had not got the studio wrong (Showtime not HBO) and The DEA agent was her husband not boyfriend I could have taken your opinion more seriously.

However, when you make mistakes with the very easy to check facts it makes it look like you do not take your readers seriously or maybe the article you were writing, which is unfortunate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Weed's horribly inaccurate portrayal.
Posted by: allusiv on Aug 13, 2007 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Weeds is lame as hell if you've actually been involved or are involved in the business of marijuana distribution or cultivation. None of it is even close to reality. It's the biggest dose of cliche on TV, and a huge amalgam of all the cannabis stereotypes put together.

I mean, a car as collateral for 2 oz is just absurd!

It also bugs me how they often portray stoners as idiots. The scene with Doug and Andy trying to catch the rat was pathetic.

Weeds is yet another outlet of disinformation on marijuana and marijuana culture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So then... Posted by: Domokun
» RE: Let me guess, you're a pot head? Posted by: imjustanidiotidontknowanything
» What kind of car? Posted by: Sojourner
Alternet content unrelated to ads???
Posted by: dover23 on Aug 13, 2007 10:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is that a big fat ad for Showtime at the top of this page?

I suppose the unending Al Gore ads have no relation to the unending stories written by Democratic Party apologists, including the "comment of the weak" insulting those who have abandoned their illusions of the two party system?

This type of nonsense is one of the reasons why the naive Doug Wilsons of the world need weed just to get through the day...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bro ...
Posted by: caru on Aug 13, 2007 11:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
eeek.

ok kids. broadcast television -- the idea makes me want to puke. i killed my tv long ago. i only ever watch digital media hoping that this is the higher art form. at least i can select the brain washing ...

weeds to me is more about weeding out the crappola in the mind of the sheeple in the usa ... i am super glad i get to see it all in one sitting, rather than served over months of commercials. does st use commercials . . .

certainly we can all be more aroused by rove leaving office (a sign we are going into iran) --- but instead we wade into the commentary on the underground movement to legalize cannabis ... the safest herb known to earth (after 25 when yer brain is developed) ... typified in this series as being under prohibition ... certainly the soap opera of this government is more pressing, 1 million dead in iraq, how many soon in iran ... this show, weeds, is one sign the usa still allows free speech ... even so, most us citizens are sleepily chewing up the planet in the suburbs, in the weeds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Weeds is Great
Posted by: ilovelucy on Aug 13, 2007 12:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I loved the first two seasons. It's everything the author of this article said it is - smart, funny & has a great cast. I like M. L. Parker more than the author, though. Like the other cable series mentioned, it's got character development, chemistry and fantastic writing. I'm surprised by the negative comments I read - I'm not sure the posters really watched the show.

I think The Wire, an HBO series, is probably the best series out there. I was blown away by how they turned the good guys/bad guys convention on its head. The plot, acting, character development - all first rate. Like a lot of series (Grey's Anatomy comes to mind), I wasn't crazy about the lead character, but they sidelined him after the first two seasons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I haven't seen her ass, but have you seen her ACT?
Posted by: Meta4 on Aug 13, 2007 12:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll be catching up with the first episode tonight, hopefully. But if you've ever actually SEEN Mary Louise Parker ACT, you might not be so quick to make such an uninformed remark. She was sublime on West Wing and miraculous in Proof, on Broadway. Which, unlike her ass, I have seen. (Not that there's anything wrong with seeing her ass ...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

so it's her ass that's the problem?!
Posted by: DaBear on Aug 13, 2007 2:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Um... per the article the only problem is she appears to be relying on her ass? Are we watching the same show? The trailers are more provocative than the show... hence the groovy irony in the TV term for trailers, i.e., "teasers."

Yes, the portrayal of her as the hapless or helpless innocent whitey female, or whatever Sheerly calls her, can become annoying but the season 2 finale was anything but doe-eyed hapless or whatever the hell the author misunderstood the situation and Parker's character to be. Parker's portrayal is in character and the character is part of the hyperbolistic satire. Just because you want Parker to behave like Glenn Close in Damages doesn't mean that's legitimate criticism of her character in a satirical, political-social commentary genre work. I mean, come on, surely someone like the author has met some of the kept bimbettes up in Bell Canyon. Must every character on teevee be precisely mimetic of real life? If so, you've lost comedy, satire and every other work out there that's smart and adventurous. Why be so fundamentalist?

It's not her ass that's a problem (BTW I must have missed that episode because I'd remember Parker's ass and it's never been bared on Weeds, frankly). In fact, there isn't a problem with Weeds at all. It's great fiction that pokes smartly at real life, just as all good literature does. It's class commentary, Sheerly, get a grip!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lear to read
Posted by: dfish on Aug 13, 2007 7:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read the first line, it says it's a Showtime production. He was only comparing it to shows on HBO and FX.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sexism
Posted by: The Western Confucian on Aug 14, 2007 2:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What if it were a male author who talked about her "really nice ass" and pondered "which part of her to attack first"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ITS A GREAT SHOW
Posted by: donl51 on Aug 14, 2007 2:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its a great show,don't build so much into it, just watch and laugh or chuckle,if you've smoked weed you know where its at ,I think the more good shows about weed will help it become legal,more exposure,and that DEA guy was more of a criminal than anybody else he swore an oath! watch ,enjoy or don't watch and don't bitch so the rest of us can enjoy it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.