New '90210' is too raunchy for family hour
It's 8 o'clock on a Tuesday night and you sit down to watch the new "90210" because you remember the old "Beverly Hills 90210." You remember nesting with your then-teenage daughters in front of the TV, laughing, talking on and on about clothes and hair and lifestyle and the undeniable fact that none of these TV teens - Brenda and Brandon and Kelly and Steve and Dylan, with his brooding bad boy good looks - looked like any teens we knew.
"90210" was our guilty pleasure. We watched it, as well as "Melrose Place," every week whenever we could for almost all of its 10-year run. We watched it together and apart. My daughters went off to college and watched it in the dorm. We'd talk about it afterward, that night or the next day. Should Donna Martin be allowed to graduate even though she got caught drinking? Who is this Emily Valentine and what does Brandon see in her? And what does Donna see in David?
If one of us missed the show, there was a network of people - mostly my daughters' friends - to fill us in. This silly, tacky, totally unrealistic, over-the-top teen drama about pretty, rich people with pretty rich people problems hooked us, entertained us, and brought us together for an hour.
Eighteen years later, I hoped that's what it would do again. But instead, all we got was a lesson in how times have changed.
This was the opening scene of the new but not improved "90210." A teenage boy sits alone in his car. A teenage girl, someone he knows, sees him, smiles and waves, and walks toward him.
But the boy doesn't wave back. He looks guilty and nervous. Why? Because he is not alone in his car. Because up from his lap - on network TV smack in the middle of family hour - pops a very tousled teenage girl, who, by the way, looks 30 and smug.
The fact that this scene aired at 8:10 was both stunning and enlightening. Stunning because, really, how is this allowed? Is nothing off limits?
And enlightening because the show aired on a medium that not too long ago wouldn't allow even married characters - think Rob and Laura Petrie (Dick Van Dyke and Mary Tyler Moore) - to be seen in the same bed. Now that medium allows actors who are playing children to simulate sex.
I expected some buzz about this, a little outrage. Parents complaining that they don't want their kids exposed to this. But there has been almost no reaction. A few reviewers called the opening scene a stunt to get publicity. And the Parents Television Council, a watchdog group that tries to make the entertainment industry act responsibly, of course lodged a complaint.
But 4.91 million viewers watched the show. It was the highest-rated premiere in the two-year history of the CW network. Where is the disapproval?
Both my daughters, who are in their 30s now, tuned in. The younger one lasted all of 10 minutes. The other stayed with it until the end. I watched the two-hour pilot for only an hour. We were all disappointed.
Before the new series premiered, the World Entertainment News Network reported that actress Jennie Garth, who played Kelly Taylor on the original show and has reprised her role, will not allow her children to watch this spinoff. "When Garth first played rich kid Kelly Taylor on 90210, the show was family viewing, but she fears the new-look series is far too raunchy for preteens."
It is certainly not what preteens or teens should be watching. How do you teach children to be good and do what's right when a television show designed for them is showing them that nothing matters and that anything goes? How do you combat this message?
This "90210" is too raunchy not just for preteens, but for all teens. It's adult sex disguised as entertainment. On network TV. Every week at 8 p.m.
It's unfathomable that this show has sponsors - and millions of viewers. Parents, please sit down and see what your kids are seeing. You'll be glad you did.
Beverly Beckham can be reached at bevbeckham@aol.com. 