The Book of Daniel, a view from an Episcopalian

[toby]

I am an Episcopalian and I did not find The Book of Daniel offensive in any way shape or form, save for the idiots condemning it sight unseen. However it was bit clichéd - I did love the Mobbed up Roman Catholic priest - yet it was a strong family drama with a bit of black comedy.

OK not in the American Family Association (through some miracle their website is down right now, which reaffirms my faith) way, but in a more true to life way. The Jesus character was more of a moral compass than expected, almost as a manifestation of conscience. There were some little accurate touches, like The Hymnal 1982 making an appearance in the scene with the choir practice. And since it is set in a fictional Westchester County town called Newbury, some references to various places in the county such as Bronxville and calling Manhattan "The City" were welcome.

Some TV things, there were some rather long extended NBC promos, for the Olympics, My Name is Earl and The Office plus a little featurette about King Kong (a NBC-Universal film). The hate mongering censorship loving "Christians" must have scared some advertisers away scared some advertisers away. Two NBC affiliates owned by Nexstar - KARK in Little Rock, Arkansas and WTWO in Terre Haute, Indiana - pre-empted the show due to pressure from these "Christian" and family groups.

You may want to check out the pro-Book of Daniel blog from the Episcopal Diocese of Washington called the Blog of Daniel.

<P ID="signature">______________
<a href=http://blog.spotteddogs.org/blog/>Random Observations on Life, the Universe and Television</a></P>

 

[rugrats1]

> You may want to check out the pro-Book of Daniel blog from
> the Episcopal Diocese of Washington called the Blog of
> Daniel.
>
"We cannot proceed." (That's Radio-Info's line, not Daniel's.)

Use these links instead:

http://blog.edow.org/weblog/

Personally, at least the Episcopalians are taking a middle ground with their "let's talk about it" attitude, instead of Bible-thumpers Wildmon and Dobson condemning a show, based only on a few promos and a press release.

I wonder what Pat Robertson said about "Daniel", since he has nothing favorable to say about anyone other than talibanic Christians like himself.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by rugrats1 on 01/07/06 06:21 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[orangemonster2k1]

Hey,

Oddly enough, NBC25 (WHAG-TV in Hagerstown, MD) another Nexstar station, did air it. The Four State area (VA, WV, MD, PA) is quite religious and there was no complaints what-so-ever, before...or after that I have heard.

Rock on,

Tybois Uphold
Co-Editor/News Director
SVRTV - Winchester, VA
www.svrtv.net

 

[Passafist]

Here is my own review of the Book of Daniel!! It's kind of Long! But you might be interested.

A sure-fire way to tick off a bunch of people all at the same time is to mess with their deeply held beliefs. To make them look like buffoons, and to stamp on their faith with equal measure. But the worst thing you can do in all the world is mess with Jesus. THE BOOK OF DANIEL NBC’s latest attempt to cash in on a little controversy is just that kind of show. Its designed to shock, and to make people really mad. Will it keep people watching, probably not.

Daniel Webster (Aidan Quinn) is an Episcopal Minister with a lot on his plate. His daughter sells drugs, his wife drinks a little to much, his sister in law is having a lesbian affair with her husbands secretary, his son is gay, and his Chinese adopted son is carrying on a sexual relationship with one of his most powerful congregant at his church. As the first episode opens Webster’s Brother in Law has just stolen 3 million dollars from the church’s new school building fund. So Webster enlists the help of a Catholic priest with mob connections to track him down. Oh yeah and one more thing Webster is best friends with Jesus.

But for all the controversy that this show has gotten it not a very good program. It clunks along trying to be a soap opera and a realistic drama all at the same time. It’s funny, the characters are quirky, but Webster is far too straight, caring, and real to inhabit this world of crazy people. It takes cheap shots and is blatantly crude for no reason. If the show is going to succeeded it needs to focus in on whether it wants to be a show about a man struggling to keep his family and church in line, or a Desperate Housewives clone.

The show has moments that are so spot on. I loved when Webster would interact with his family. I even liked how the family couldn’t get through one family dinner without some form of dysfunction popping out. I liked the concept of a priest juggling his family life with the concerns of his church and I liked how these scene felt honest. That part of this program was compelling.

What I didn’t like was the broad soapy comedy. The quirky sister-in-law is both obnoxious and annoying. But worse she pulls us out of the action and turns the show into a farce. It’s when the show reaches for broad comedy that it erases the honesty it’s built in the other scenes. My suggestion to the creative team is that if this is the direction you want the show to go, do it. Don’t sugar coat it with real honesty and understanding if your end result is only to offend. I think it was Saint Francis of Assisi who said “Sin Boldly.” If the Book of Daniel is to become a Religious farce make it that way and stop trying to tow the line.

At this point the honest moments feel like they are designed to give ths how some class. So TV Critics and Viewers can say here’s why you should watch. But I’d ask any viewer to compare the scene at the funeral with the scene in which Webster and his daughter are discussing her drug dealing. Do they belong in the same program? No.

As for the big hot potato the Webster talking to Jesus stuff doesn’t make sense. Except if this isn’t the real Jesus but just a figment of Webster’s imagination. Because the Jesus that’s scripted is so gimmicky and so under used I’d drop it from the show not because it’s particularly offensive but because it’s pointless. This Jesus spouts out greeting card platitudes instead of actual advice. Every discussion that the two men have is exactly the same, and the gimmick feels like more clutter than this show needs.

THE BOOK OF DANIEL needs to decide what kind of show it wants to be. One of those show I might even be interested in watching. But judging from the first episode it’s a mess of deep honesty and insipid farce. At this point its unwatchable. Had I not been instructed by my Boss to watch it I probably would have given the show about 15 minutes of my time.

As it is I can only see THE BOOK OF DANIEL bite the dust just like past NBC religious blunders “GOD THE DEVIL AND BOB” and ABC’s “NOTHING SACRED.” This one isn’t bold enough, or compelling enough to keep viewers interested. Controversy may get someone to watch once but it won’t keep them watching.

 

[nascar_red]

And don't forget the throwback ending to each chapter where the video image becomes a color cariacture like the old Wild Wild West TV show.

 

[toby]

> Daniel Webster (Aidan Quinn) is an Episcopal Minister

It is Episcopal PRIEST! That is the proper term.
<P ID="signature">______________
<a href=http://blog.spotteddogs.org/blog/>Random Observations on Life, the Universe and Television</a></P>

 

[Les]

Re: The Book of Daniel, a view from an anarchist

> I am an Episcopalian and I did not find The Book of Daniel
> offensive in any way shape or form

OK, as a once-upon-a time Anglican (English for "Episcopalian"),
I agree. Not offensive.

Just pointless.

This is the family that tries to put the "fun" back in "dysFUNctional"
but misses. Just too much dysfunction for any one family.
Yeah, I know, it's meant to be comedy (isn't it?) but in their
attempts to emulate Larry, Moe and Curly + extended Stooge family
they failed.

I gave it 15-minutes and went back to a rerun on another channel.
It was more entertaining, despite having seen it months ago.

Not that I have any stock related to the network but, if I did,
I'd try to sell it on some street corner 'cause it's in the hopper
when the markets open on Monday.<P ID="signature">______________
"environmentalism is collectivism in drag."
--George Will (or won't)</P>

 

[Les]

> It is Episcopal PRIEST! That is the proper term.

Not necessarily.

Within the religion there is "high church" which goes big on calling the
clergy "priest" and "Father". Sort of a home for Roman Catholics who
can't quite bring themselves to believe in all they're supposed to and,
gee, feel real bad about it.

The other faction is "low church" which prefers the term "Minister" and
"Mister" or, in the extreme, "Reverend". More spoken liturgy than sung.
Less decorative attire. In congregations of the "low church" variety
a Minister who demanded to be called "Father" would find him/herself
ostracized and quickly move on.

Interestingly, more than a few "Episcopal Priests" have transitioned into
the Roman Catholic Church where they are freely accepted and are even allowed
to keep their wives and families! A novel way to deal with "falling vocations"...might even become a bidding war someday????

Oh, Episcopal-turned-Roman Catholic Priests are exclusively male; female
Episcopal Priests are not welcome. Gay Episcopal Priests also need not
apply.
<P ID="signature">______________
"environmentalism is collectivism in drag."
--George Will (or won't)</P>

 

[toby]

> > It is Episcopal PRIEST! That is the proper term.
>
> Not necessarily.

If you take a look at the Book of Common Prayer (1979), page 525, you will see something called "The Ordination of a Priest" which I think makes the proper term quite obvious.<P ID="signature">______________
<a href=http://blog.spotteddogs.org/blog/>Random Observations on Life, the Universe and Television</a></P>

 

[Les]

> If you take a look at the Book of Common Prayer (1979), page
> 525, you will see something called "The Ordination of a
> Priest" which I think makes the proper term quite obvious.

If that's the edition you prefer.

No, I'm not gonna go in search of some of the others though
I have seen other wording, probably in the late 1940's.
Even in congregations using the 1979 Edition it is accepted
that the "correct" word is priest but that doesn't make
everyday use of it acceptable.

It's not a matter of simply what's "right"; it's
a matter of preference of the congregation.


To some, "Minister" is incorrect and an abomination...but to others,
"Priest" is pretentious and an abomination (religions
just love that word "abomination"). Remember, I'm not saying
one or the other is absolutely correct and the other is
absolutely incorrect....just that EITHER, in the REAL world,
is used according to congregational choice. I guess it just
depends on how closely one relates to "political correctness".
Holy wars have started over less!

BTW, an interesting test would be examine how members of The
Episcopal Clerby fill in the "occupation" blank on their IRS
forms. How many say "Priest", how many say "Minister" and how
many say something socially PC like "clergy-person".

Now the TV program could really have fun with a member of the
congregation who works in a crime lab and squirts "Luminol"
all over the cloth used to wipe the rim of the chalice.
Would he get a blood reaction or not? Either way, and I
ain't gonna take sides, he could produce a schism in the
flock that might result in an ongoing drama, probably ending
in acrimony, recrimination, and ultimately (you should pardon
the expression), bloodshed!

Oooohhhh! Just for the sake of controversy, if there were a
blood reaction, what might a DNA test reveal? What if the
cloths from a thousand churches were examined and the number
of blood reactions was only about 50%. Would that make some
religions....or even individual congregations within a faith...
more holy than others? And what would the multiple DNA tests
reveal....one might hope they'd all point to a single donor!

Anybody got enough nerve, courage, or stupidity to pack that
into a TV episode? Imagine the possibilities (omitting network
concerns) of combining "The Book of Daniel" with "CSI, wherever"
in a single special 2-hour episode!

How would "forces-for-good-in-the-community" react to even a
rumor that some network were even thinking about producing such
a program????


<P ID="signature">______________
"environmentalism is collectivism in drag."
--George Will (or won't)</P>

 

[Shadowsabre]

...and the difference?

...and the difference between Jesus himself giving advice, and an Angel giving advice on a tv show is?
Touched by an angel may be a very different thing, but think about that for a second...if it were an angel, instead of Jesus himself...would that help anything?...an angel sent by god.
My guess is that NBC just wants to step out and be diffrent from the usual "Angel" format to gain the most attention possible for ratings.

PLUS ALSO, the fact that they DO link well to the very idea that there is only one god, regardless of what, or who you choose to believe in, should also be a good reason to grow to accept this program, wether you like it or not, and just let the viewers decide.

 

[zman]

>
> Oooohhhh! Just for the sake of controversy, if there were a
>
> blood reaction, what might a DNA test reveal? What if the
> cloths from a thousand churches were examined and the number
>
> of blood reactions was only about 50%. Would that make some
>
> religions....or even individual congregations within a
> faith...
> more holy than others? And what would the multiple DNA
> tests
> reveal....one might hope they'd all point to a single donor!
>
>
> Anybody got enough nerve, courage, or stupidity to pack that
>
> into a TV episode? Imagine the possibilities (omitting
> network
> concerns) of combining "The Book of Daniel" with "CSI,
> wherever"
> in a single special 2-hour episode!


It would have to be "The Book of Daniel"/"Law & Order". Since CSI is on CBS. I'd say "Law & Order SVU would be the one to team up with "The Book of Daniel". If we're going to go for controversy, might as well make it pair with a show that ddeals in sex crimes.
>