Coupling

Many people say that the American version of "Coupling" bombed because they were comparing it to the UK version. In reality, the Yank version didn't stand a chance. The actors chosen were decent enough, but they just cannot recreate the dysfunction in the same way. I mean, how can you have someone else play Jeff Murdock?? Or Jane, for that matter? Not to mention the fact that they would stick to the original script word for word at some times, and then add their own material in other areas (presumeably to reach the American audience). Soooooo bad, so very, very bad. Buy Seasons 1 and 2 of the British "Coupling" instead, and you'll understand the difference.

I've read all the reviews so far for this show, and they're all bad. I couldn't agree more. This American-ized version sucks. If you want a really good show, though, check out the original (it's different, the characters are funnier and don't look like supermodels - thank god - and besides, the American one was 'edited' as I understood it).

Watch the original on BBCAmerica, it's hilarious. Don't waste your time, however, with this version.

For those of you unfamiliar with Coupling (it means you've been living under a rock) it is a show from the great isle of Britain which is basically Friends... who have sex.

The show is wildly popular in Britain and made a splash on BBC America, and thanks to DVD the show has been reaching a broader audience. And with anything successful in Britain, America feels that they can take it and remake it better.

So in the same vain as Three's Company, Faulty Towers, and American idol, Coupling has been shipped to America, given a generic wrapper and dropped into the laps of the unsuspecting American couch potato. With the success and intelligent writing of the British version the American version is bound to be a success... right?

WRONG.

Bollocks is what I say dog bollocks to be more precise. From the first moment of casting, by the way the casting director should be shot, I knew this show as doomed for failure. Now I know they want to differentiate themselves from the original, but part of the appeal of the original show is who was cast in it. Each character in the British version was cast in such a precise way that half of the success of the show is based on the actor who performs their part. And since episode one was practically a word for word re- shooting of the original British version (minus 15 minutes since British programs run 45 minutes instead of 30) the miscasting took jokes that could and should have been funny, and made them, not, so funny.

To make matters worse a laugh track is used to elicit laughter in areas that are, not, funny. Granted, a few times I was forced to laugh, I won't deny it, but not as much as I did when I saw the original.

So the cast, Jay Harrington plays "Steve", Steve is supposed to be a bit of a dork, a nice guy, but not all that clever as portrayed by Jack Davenport (recently seen in Pirates of the Caribbean). Jay Harrington is not dorky, not clever, and to be honest not that interesting. Part of the reason why Steve's lines work is because of how Davenport delivers them, I realize its a pilot but Harrington has a lot to make up for.

Jane, Steve's "ex"-girlfriend is played by Lindsay Price, a petite, attractive, squeaky voiced girl, who would make a great Susan, but is no Gina Bellman. Again part of what makes Jane great is Bellman's performance, Jane is one of my favorite characters and I can't see Price pull it off. Again, she would have made a great Susan, but not Jane.

Speaking of Susan, Rena Sofer from General Hospital fame plays the role originally performed by Sarah Alexander. Alexander makes the role what it is, Sofer would have been a better Jane then sally, its evident the producers tried to use Sofer's appeal to make the show work, well it didn't, she was very uncomfortable in the role, Susan, a woman who enjoys sex but is embarrassed by it at the same time. I honestly don't think anything would embarrass Sofer.

Christopher Moynihan plays Jeff, Jeff makes the British version what it is, Jeff is the pivotal role involved with the success of the show, cast a bad Jeff and the show will fail, well let me tell you, boy did they ever cast a wrong Jeff. Richard Coyle, who plays the original is fantastic, he's funny, and goofy and just so "Jeff", Moynihan is everything Jeff isn't, and most of all he isn't funny. Originally Breckin Meyer (of Clueless fame) was cast as Jeff, had he remained the show might have been more successful.

Sonya Walger plays Sally, the self-obsessed neurotic best friend of Susan. I have to admit, Sally's my least favorite character, played by Kate Isitt in the original. Not to say that Isitt is a bad actress, she just plays the character so well, I'm annoyed. The ironic aspect of this is Walger, last seen in The Mind of the Married Man on HBO, is English, has an English accent, but for some asinine reason, they had her adopt an American accent, and a bad one a that. Walger's performance of Sally was practically unnoticeable, as I believe that most of her lines were cut to a lot for the 15 minutes needed to be cut.

Colin Ferguson plays the well endowed "stud" Patrick, and I have to say, Ferguson is probably the only cast member correctly cast. While he has yet to pull of the obtuse confidence of the original Ben Miles, he shows some promise. There's nothing I can really say about Ferguson except if they recast the show, please keep him.

So will the American version of Coupling even catch a glimpse of the success the original did? I would have to say with its current cast, no. Considering the original's appeal was the mix of witty dialogue and brilliant acting, something the American version lacks, its a testament at exactly how important the right casting director is. The American version was well written, but the characters just lacked any kind of appeal, it just made me long for more of the original.

Speaking of the original, why Hollywood didn't just pump money into the original and produce more of those instead of this mess is beyond me, evidently Hollywood feels that the average American cannot bear a British accent, but then again, how did the original become so popular?

Just bad. Once you've seen the English version this comes across as a slap in the face to the creators. The actors are really not up to it, nothing can compare to the English cast, the chemistry just doesn't seem to be right here. And nobody else can really do Geoff the way he's supposed to be. I wasn't able to enjoy the U.S. version, it all just seemed wrong. As I have already stated the chemistry is just wrong. The cast don't really seem that comfortable with what they're doing. Since I love the original British version so much, I was expecting this to keep up the same level of quality, but it doesn't even come close. I'm not at all surprised that it was cancelled.

Someone already gave an excellent breakdown of the American cast and how they are inferior to the original. It is not that American remakes can't be done ... "Three's Company" was basically a remake of a British show, and when I caught it on air, I was not impressed ... the American version was better. Perhaps perhaps perhaps it was just because it didn't translate well. Still, it shows that just because you remake a show doesn't mean it is necessarily bad. On the other hand, maybe the key is that the show was translated to American tastes, just as "Coupling" itself took "Seinfeld" and "Friends" and translated it into a form the British could recognize. If so, this remake is a bad translation.

It might be unfair to base this on one episode, but the problems do seem too basic to ignore. First off, the show was much more forced than the original, and had an annoying laugh track that just made it worse. The original is peopled with characters fascinated with sex but still in some sense sympathetic and human. The remake seems to be peopled with sitcom actors. All too stylish. The original was often hilarious but often restrained as well ... the remake, perhaps showing its American style, was less restrained. And, the original took place in Britian, but wasn't so "British" that was bothersome ... in fact, its British touches gave it some flavor. This takes place in Chicago, but the show has to put a sign in the bar with "Chicago" in it, since w/o that you'd have little reason to know these people lived there. Perhaps, the locale will be taken advantage of in the future, let's see.

The original was influenced by the properness of the British symbolized by Steve, who forever seems to be uncomfortable. The fact is that this is easily translated to America ... the fact is that many men here are uncomfortable with sex, fascinated and mesmerized by it, but deep down uncomfortable and unsure of themselves. It is human nature and if handled properly, could be the basis of a great comedy. The problem is that American sitcoms have gotten in a rut in which sex is so easily handled and tossed about, so that a more restrained show (especially one following the madcap "Will and Grace") would be deemed too much of a risk.

I will tell you what a risk is ... a nearly verbatim remake of a great show, one which many viewers could access for themselves, that is quite inferior to the original, but is so overhyped that expectations are rather high.

-j

PS In the original, Steve and Jane dated for years, but here, it was changed to one year. Perhaps, this is a symbol of the cheapening of the show ... in an American sitcom, one could not be together THAT long. Also, the original had a joke comparing their relationship to a husband driven to homicide ... the remake used a "Titanic" joke. Not quite the same image!