Hulu’s ‘Chad Powers’ Misses The Mark, Subbing Crude For Clever
(REVIEW) I really, really wanted to like Chad Powers – the new football-themed Hulu comedy starring Glen Powell.
But then, the writers f—-ed it all up.
Even typing that word with the print equivalent of a bleep makes me cringe, but like they might say of their dialogue. I did it to make a point.
READ: Jets Quarterback Justin Fields Keeps The Faith In The Face Of Adversity
“Chad Powers” is a bad dude on a slow road to redemption, but how much mud do we have to slop through until he gets there?
“Chad” is not his real name. It’s a pseudonym for Russ Holliday, a rogue who messed up his future when he grandstanded on a touchdown run in a college game and dropped the ball before scoring. He then doubled down on stupid by verbally abusing a young, disabled fan’s father on the sideline in full view of the kid and social media.
Flash-forward 8 years and Holliday is still spiraling, partying on and living in his father’s basement - hoping the brash XFL will welcome his talent and rescue him from infamy. It doesn’t — Russ can’t escape Russ.
This leads to our story – a Rudy-esque chance to walk on in open quarterback tryouts for a losing college football team. Of course, Russ can’t walk on as a student, so “Chad” is born - somehow fooling everyone with a wig, prosthetics and a West Virginia accent. ‘ Nuff said.
I wanted to like “Chad Powers” because I saw the Eli Manning ESPN bit where he played the walk-on QB in disguise, minus the ugly backstory.
I wanted to like it because the Manning brothers were co-producing with big-star Powell. I also sort of trusted the Disney brand as it integrated Hulu content into its larger platform for the good of its business and, maybe, its viewers.
I was misinformed.
It was right there in the promotional trailer — former New York Giants quarterback Eli Manning, playing a coach — “Who the f—- is that?”
Throughout the show, the bombs were bursting in the air – not just Russ, but the coaches, the women and the extras. The only one not dropping them in this faux football world was the “Christian” backup quarterback who was, of course, a sincere idiot.
Casual vulgarity has oozed up from R-rated movies, to pay cable, to mainstream pop culture through streaming video and socials. But should we, the consumers, keep allowing our media to define deviancy down?
I say no, starting with my religious values fully plugged in. A Christian or Jew usually takes their cues from the 3rd commandment: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” Exodus 20:7 (ESV)
But common vulgarities do no vain thing. Taking God’s name in vain probably means much more than “God d—-", but everyday “profanities” don’t really rise to the level of debasing the holy.
The law is not much help here either, as Supreme Court rulings attach the “obscenity” label only to prurient sexual content and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mostly polices “indecency” on radio and TV airwaves, which has particular, and confusing definitions of its own. The key point: The FCC has almost ZERO authority to control streaming content.
But I don’t think you have to confront the slop religiously to object reasonably. What about the cost to our public intellect? When popular art goes to the gutter, it stops helping us aspire to our better natures and panders to our worst.
I can hear the pushback: “ You’re a prude, people really talk like that, and entertainment reflects reality.”
Well, to the prude part, I get it. I’ve worked in a newsroom, so I’ve heard it all.
But let’s talk about realism. If “real” is the standard, let’s film actors without makeup. Let’s use only natural lighting. Let’s cut the music that tells us how to feel every scene. And for dialogue, leave in the “ums” and “likes” — because that’s how people talk.
A show is presentational, never real. The artist chooses what it will be.
A story is aspirational. We want the hero to struggle, then change.
Does the prodigal Chad need to slop in the pit before his redemption? Yes, indeed. But a more creative writer could get him through that journey without crude world-building. On screens past and PG-present, heroes and villains manage to convey menace without the cheap shortcut of gutter language.
In short … my ears and brain are tired. I could turn it off, but the artists and Disney can do better. I believe most of us do not live in the world Hollywood thinks we live in from the cracked windows of their writers’ rooms. Why must we share their view in the stories we seek at home – for escape, a smile, and a little hope?
Randall E. King is a professor of communication at North Greenville University in South Carolina and a former television reporter and news producer. He has more than 40 years of experience in media work as educator, journalist and content creator.