AS the fall season kicks into high gear this week, we’re seeing the emergence of an exciting new trend: nonreality television!
Believe it or not, network and cable channels alike are offering shows that were written by actual writers, starring trained actors who play characters.
Of course, having been steeped in endless “Survivor” offshoots for the past few years, our first question was nonetheless: How close to reality are these shows, anyway? Can you really plot an escape from prison using tattoos?
Are New York chefs really high on drugs all the time? We tracked down some experts on the subject matter of four of TV’s hottest new arrivals – “Prison Break,” “Commander in Chief,” “Kitchen Confidential” and “Extras” – and asked them to give us their take on which parts are fictional and what stuff you simply can’t make up.
—-
PRISON BREAK
The premise: An engineer gets himself incarcerated in the prison he designed, to rescue his possibly wrongly imprisoned brother from Death Row. (Airs Mondays at 9 p.m. on Fox.)
Our expert: Ray Paglia, 28, ex-con who spent four years at Corcoran State Prison in California.
What they got right: “A lot of the guards act the way they reflect them in the show. They depict a few corrupt
guards who are as bad, if not worse, than the inmates themselves. As a whole, correction officers are just people doing their job, but the corrupt ones make prison even more miserable than it would be without them.
“I think Fox has a pretty good grasp on the tension that stays in the prison between the races – even though they don’t go into it that much, they do a pretty good job reflecting it. Also, I know a lot of prison shows go into things about rampant rapes and homosexuality; this one hasn’t so far, and that’s a good thing, I think. That’s more realistic.”
What they got wrong: “Michael should be in a federal prison, not state, because he committed a bank robbery, which is a federal crime.
“Also, Death Row inmates are isolated – they’re not gonna be together working as painters like the brothers are on the show. They’re in their cells for 23 hours a day.”
Bottom line: “This is a great show with a lot of validity.”
KITCHEN CONFIDENTIAL
The premise: A chef at a top New York restaurant runs a debaucherous kitchen. (Airs Mondays at 8:30 p.m. on Fox.)
Our expert: Galen Zamarra, 29, chef and owner of Mas restaurant in Manhattan.
What they got right: “I’d be lying if I said there weren’t people drinking and doing drugs and maybe having sex or fooling around at work in restaurants. That certainly happens.”
What they got wrong: “I think that they way they were portraying chefs – good chefs – as drinking, doing cocaine with a bunch of the other cooks, right there on the line while they’re cooking . . . that’s pretty sensationalized, for sure. The reality is that chefs go out afterwork and party pretty hard.
“I think there’s a lot of fooling around going on between restaurant workers, but probably no different than any office.
“Those random chefs who are completely drunk at work and have drug problems? Those aren’t really those types of restaurant you want to eat at anyway. It seemed like this guy was supposed to be the best chef in city – if you were to compare, like a Jean-Georges [Vongerichten] or a Mario Batalli. Cooking and drinking, having sex in the walk-in? It’s pretty outlandish. I mean, those guys may drink, and isn’t Jean-Georges married to a former hostess? But I don’t think they do it at work.
“Plus, there wasn’t any cooking going on! They didn’t capture any of the stress and craziness that goes on because of cooking – it was all because these guys are a bunch of f – – – ups. They’re doing lines of coke, playing cards – other than wearing a chef’s hat, he wasn’t being a chef in any way, shape or form.
“I don’t mean that people don’t [really] f – – – around – people f – – – around after work, is what really goes on. There isn’t time for that in the kitchen, man. Jeez!”
Bottom line: “From a chef’s standpoint, it wasn’t in any way realistic about what a restaurant is like. But I mean, it’s TV. They were trying to be funny – and I didn’t think it was funny.”
EXTRAS
The premise: An underemployed actor makes a living as a movie extra. (Airs Sundays at 10:30 p.m. on HBO.)
Our expert: Jon Friedman, 28, extra on “Law & Order,” other shows.
What they got right: “There’s a lot of down time, a lot of waiting around. And from my experience, and from observing other extras, I saw who the life-long extras were, and they all seemed to know each other. Those are the main parallels – just the down time, sitting and waiting, and talking, and taking advantage of the free craft services food. On ‘Saturday Night Live,’ I was one of the people in a crowd in one sketch, and I was there all day. And that was one of the greatest days of my life, because it’s one of my favorite shows. To be a part of it was kind of like a dream come true. And a lot of extras have that experience.”
What they got wrong: “The stars were a little too accessible. I mean, it could be different on a film, because you’re there every day for months, whereas for TV, it’s just for that episode, so you may get to know everyone a lot better. But Ricky Gervais’ character would just walk into someone’s trailer.”
Bottom line: “I liked it very much. It felt like a mix of ‘The Office’ and ‘Curb Your Enthusiam’ – it’s a unique show.”
COMMANDER IN CHIEF
The premise: A woman becomes the first female president of the United States. (Airs Tuesdays
at 9 p.m. on ABC.)
Our expert: Zina Pierre, former member of the Clinton administration and board member of the White House Project, an advocacy group for women in public office
What they got right: “I remember when ‘The West Wing’ came out, and I watched a couple episodes and didn’t find that it depicted many of the characters that were actually in the White House. In particular, the diversity didn’t exist like it does in ‘Commander in Chief’ – I was pleasantly surprised.
“When the President [on the show] went to do her first speech to Congress, the Speaker of the House set it up so that her teleprompter broke. It reminded me of the first speech that President Clinton did in Congress – the same thing happened to him! I remember that being a [tough] situation, and it was all over the press, and he made it work for him. And she did the same thing, she said her speech, and united the country and the rest of the world.
“There’s some tension between the two political parties, which happens – you’re going to feel the tension of former staff career people that have gone through the transition. Some people just have their favorites [staff members].”
What they got wrong: “The one thing that was a little awkward was the vice president being married to the chief of staff. You would never see that kind of thing – politically speaking, it would be a nightmare.”
Bottom line:”I really think that, overall, this is going to allow the American public to get a feel for what it would be
like to have a female president.”