Monday, July 28, 2008

Mad Men: 'For Those Who Think Young' (2x01)

Mad Men season two starts off strong, with an episode that draws you back into the series’ world, and shows how distinctly insightful the show is in exploring human behavior in social systems. Almost no other film or TV work is as precise in showing the subtle ways that people interact with each other. Amidst all the big themes and character arcs, what stands out is the show’s ability to construct single moments that are incredibly and real.

I will say that it took me until about halfway through the episode to really get back into the world. It’s always tough getting back into a show after a year away, you’ve got to remember what was going on, where the characters were at, and once again get used to the style of storytelling. Opening status quo update montage aside, Weiner seems to have gone with the throw you back into the world and let you catch up approach. I think it works, it flows seamlessly out of the first season, and it didn’t take too long for me to get back into the swing of things.

The most interesting segment of the episode for me was Betty’s encounter with her old roommate, who’s now a call girl. It makes her realize that in a lot of ways she’s prostituting herself as much as her old friend. She sells herself for fur coats and fancy dinners, for the life she claims to have always wanted. The series always keeps Betty’s past as a model near the surface, a reminder that she used to support herself and live a single life. She was probably still mostly cared for by men, but there was no guarantee that things would go this way for her.

Betty remains as delightfully removed from reality as she was last season, most notably during that moment where she compares her children to manure. I’m guessing her arc this season will further develop the contrast between the life she thinks she should be living, and actualizing more of her own identity. This is set up in the fascinating scene with her and the tow truck guy. The brilliance of that scene is we’re not sure how far she’s going to go. What will she have to do to get her car fixed, and will she be willing to do that? Even just hustling the guy for six dollars is a move we likely wouldn’t have seen from her earlier. She’s still aware of how she can use her sexuality, and the power it gives her over men. The scene reminded me a lot of what we saw with Brenda in Six Feet Under season two, where she tested the boundaries of what was acceptable within a relationship. And, Betty’s arc as a whole has much in common with what we saw from Carmela in The Sopranos.

More than ever, the show reminds me of The Sopranos. While the mob storylines got all the attention on the show, what made it so great was the incredible ability to accurately capture the tiny details of social interaction, and to have so much unsaid subtext in every scene. Weiner clearly learned a lot from Chase. What’s remarkable about the show is the fact that it could very easily play as soap opera, there’s no life or death events, it’s just everyday relationship drama, but they manage to make everything subtle, yet significant.

Part of that is the period setting, and the way the series is incorporated into history. We know the changes that will come to this world, so there’s a kind of inevitable tragedy to Don. Even as he claims that the youth will never have what he has, we know that the youth will change everything, and this entire world will be gone in six or seven years. Again like The Sopranos, it’s a show about the inevitability of generational change, and the older generation’s struggle to deal with a world with changing rules. Don is better equipped to deal with these changes than some of his bosses, he has a self awareness they lack, but is too stubborn to really change.

And, as always, the show looks amazing, like nothing else on TV. The subtlety of the series is something you could never do in a film. We know the world, we know the characters, there’s no need for obvious exposition or narrative tricks, we just look at their world and get out of it what we will.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Good and Evil in the Works of David Lynch

I'm digging back into the vault for this one, an essay I wrote for a class I took on independent film. As I often did during my time in high school and college, I used the assignment as an excuse to write about something I was interested in, in this case, David Lynch.

David Lynch is one of the most distinctive voices in American film. A true auteur, his films build and expand on a set of core themes, and over the course of his career, his films have created a distinct universe. In virtually all of his films, Lynch’s primary thematic concern is the darkness that lurks beneath the shiny surface of personal dreams. In Wild At Heart, that is expressed through the conflict between the good, Sailor and Lula, and the evil world out to destroy their love. In Mulholland Dr., narrative subjectivity erases the idea of strict good and bad, instead exploring the way that a good person can be corrupted. By moving outside of traditional narrative, and exploring realities beyond the ‘real world,’ Lynch is able to extend his reach beyond the Manichean opposition of his early films, and explore the capacity for good and bad that is present in all of us.

David Lynch’s career has three distinct periods. In the first, stretching from his short films in the early 70s through Dune, he explored realities distinctly removed from our world. Eraserhead constructs a hermetically sealed universe that runs on dream-logic, totally removed from the typical patterns of human interaction. The film has a very surreal feel, and uses a variety of fantastic elements to create an alien reality. Dune again explores an otherworldly realm, this time a science fiction universe. In the film, Lynch returns to the surreal, paranormal elements of Eraserhead, but this time they’re more understandable, placed in a science fiction context.

Post Eraserhead, Lynch had been following the classic path of transition that moves independent directors from the fringe to the mainstream, and had Dune been a hit, he already had a sequel script in the works which would move him even further away from the esoteric indie world in which he began. However, the film’s failure prompted him to develop a more personal project, Blue Velvet. Elements of his first three films appear sporadically in his later movies, but it is only in Blue Velvet that we see the emergence of the personal themes and motifs that would define all his works that follow, particularly Wild at Heart and Mulholland Dr.

Blue Velvet is the first Lynch film to be set in a recognizable world, a seemingly normal, idyllic Midwestern suburb. In the film’s opening shots, we see stereotypical images of small town America, a fireman waving from a fire truck, a man watering his lawn, and most notably, a red rose in front of a white picket fence, backed by a beautiful blue sky. Lynch grew up during the fifties, and even though the film is set in the present day, most of the characters in the town are based on Lynch’s memories of where he grew up. The film’s soundtrack features numerous pop songs from the era, and the ending of the film seems to unironically endorse the notions of family and community that were so valued in the period.

The film opens with images of the town’s shiny surface, but as the opening montage concludes, the camera dives beneath the perfectly cut grass in to a crawling world of bugs and dirt. The film does much the same thing, exposing the world of extreme violence that exists on the fringes of the town. In the film, there is a clear division between this dream world of fifties happiness and the nightmare reality that Frank Booth inhabits.

Lynch, like Jeffery in the film, is fascinated by the darkness, however, he ultimately believes in the values of small town America. Sandy’s speech about the robins is critical to understanding his films that follow. Lynch may be aware of the underlying darkness, but in his films, he expresses a longing for the light. That dream is an important touchstone for defining morality in Wild at Heart and Mulholland Dr.

This dichotomy between a good surface and underlying evil is further developed in Lynch’s TV series, Twin Peaks, which focuses on a town that’s virtually identical to Blue Velvet’s Lumberton. The series begins with the town’s beloved first daughter, Laura Palmer, washed up on the beach, dead, “wrapped in plastic.” At first, Laura is presented as the wholesome incarnation of 50s values, the homecoming queen and girlfriend of the football team’s star, she does community service and is seemingly beloved by all in the town. However, as the series progresses, we find out about Laura’s dark side, and through exploring her death, observe the vast criminal underpinnings of this seemingly idyllic town. Much like Blue Velvet, the show simultaneously affirms the small town American dream and exposes the lies underpinning it.

Lynch made Wild at Heart during Twin Peaks’ first season hiatus. The film moves beyond the small town focus of the series and instead takes the narrative structure of a road movie, following Sailor and Lula as they journey across America. The film uses less mannered performances than the intensely sincere Blue Velvet, and the edgy violence prefigures the work of directors like Tarantino. Despite this, it’s a generally lighter film, with Lynch presenting a series of fun set pieces and not delving as deep into the heavy themes of his contemporaneous works.

The film maintains the fifties worldview present in his other works of the period. Sailor’s snakeskin jacket is a variation on the classic greaser uniform, and despite dancing to contemporary rock, what Sailor and Lula really loves is Elvis. The film makes more concessions to the present than Blue Velvet or Twin Peaks. The fifties elements are a shared fantasy of Sailor and Lula, indicating their strong commitment to good in an otherwise corrupt world. They are much more sexual than Jeffery and Sandy in Blue Velvet, but both relationships function as an anchor, keeping the hero from drifting off into darkness. In each case, the male hero faces a trial of extreme violence that forces him to reassess his life and choose the domestic sphere over the temptations of evil.

The film’s structure is designed to create an us vs. them dynamic, with Sailor and Lula battling the rest of the world. In the film’s first half, Sailor and Lula are living a generally happy life, exalting in each others’ presence. Tension comes from intercutting their happiness with Marietta’s rage. This intercutting makes the viewer feel the same anxiety that Sailor and Lula do about Marietta’s pursuit. This concern is made visually explicit through Lula’s visions of her mother as the wicked witch. The presence of evil in the film extends beyond just Marietta. After being set up as the antagonist for most of the movie, she fades away towards the end, replaced by Bobby Peru, an extremely evil man. Much like Frank Booth, he represents unchecked appetites, and as in Blue Velvet, our good hero is tempted to follow his dark path. In Wild at Heart, all good stems from the relationship between Sailor and Lula.

There are many classical narrative elements in the film, such as the way “Love Me Tender” is set up and then paid off at the end. What puts it on the fringe is Lynch’s bizarre imagery and the loose, episodic narrative structure. More than any other Lynch film, this could viably be criticized as being weird for weird’s sake. For example, the Cousin Dell story has no relation to the rest of the film, and exists for no reason other than its own inherent weirdness. The same is true of the scenes involving the vast network out to stop Sailor and Lula. Over the course of many scenes, this group and its power are built up, but unlike in a classical Hollywood film, there is no payoff. These scenes are there primarily as a showcase for Lynch’s filmmaking talent, important for their own aesthetic values, rather than their connection to the overall narrative. Part of the reason for this structure likely comes from the fact that Lynch adapted the film from a novel, but regardless, it stands outside the mainstream.

The most beautiful narrative digression in Wild at Heart is Sailor and Lula’s encounter with the car crash victim. The scene does serve a narrative purpose, raising tension about their possible death, but primarily it is there to show the mystery and beauty of driving at night. Headlights illuminating yellow road lines as a car drives down the highway is a recurring image in many Lynch films. Combining this image with Chris Isaak’s “Wicked Game” creates an incredible mood, an atmosphere that overwhelms the story Sailor is telling Lula. When they reach the crash site, the smoke and blood seem otherworldly. As the girl is dying, we construct a life for her out of the broken pieces we see.

What happens has no direct connection to Sailor and Lula, but experiencing the crash with them draws us closer to the characters. We hear about the crash later in a news report, but its real purpose is just to exist in that moment, a dream that Sailor and Lula encounter before they drift off into the night. The scene recalls similar episodes in Lynch’s later film, The Straight Story. Lynch has no problem doing a scene that is tangential to the narrative, as long as it is worthwhile on its own merits. He has none of the classical Hollywood impulse to explicitly tie everything together, rather he allows us to make connections through our personal reading of the film.

This kind of loose narrative structure is likely a result of his creative process, a process he describes as “catching the big fish.” In building a story, he makes himself into an open vessel and ‘channels’ the ideas into a script. This process means that his films will be less strictly structured, but more full of ideas. In Wild at Heart, that’s manifested in the various surreal touches put in each scene, such as having an old woman dance through the end of scene 42. Because the film has a generally linear narrative progression and takes place in a stylized, but recognizable world, the elements of surrealism are present more in what is in the world than in the construction of the world itself.

Following Wild at Heart, Lynch’s renown dipped. A backlash against Twin Peaks resulted in declining ratings and cancellation. Lynch directed the series’ final episode, which, along with the subsequent film, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, created a new set of symbols for Lynch to draw on, moving beyond the fifties homage period of BV/TP/WaH. During the series, Lynch developed the idea of the red room, an environment outside of time and space that Cooper goes to in a dream. As the series goes on, it is revealed that the red room is an interface between the white lodge and the black lodge, between good and evil. So, the clear division between good and evil is represented symbolically. For the first time in a Lynch film, we see characters from what appears to be our world cross over into a supernatural place outside of normal space-time. His subsequent films all feature extra dimensional beings or places designed to represent absolute good and absolute bad.

Fire Walk With Me marks the transition idyllic fifties inspired world Lynch depicted in Blue Velvet or Wild at Heart to a darker, worldview, in which the only escape from life’s suffering is death. Fire Walk With Me is designed to immerse the viewer in the world of Laura Palmer, and it is not a pretty world. We follow her as she is molested by her father, prostitutes herself and is ultimately tortured, raped and murdered. It was an abrupt break from the carefree violence of Wild at Heart.

The film marks a number of critical shifts, shifts that pave the way for Mulholland Dr. One is in the narrative structure. Dreams are a major motif in Blue Velvet, but the film unfolds in a fairly straightforward narrative progression. The same is true of Wild at Heart. Fire Walk With Me is more experimental, featuring a half hour prologue that has no narrative impact on the rest of the film, and a shifting chronology that allows the film to comment on events that occur much later in the series’ chronology.

The section of the film in which Phillip Jefferies recounts a story of various lodge characters is Lynch’s most experimental work, given meaning more by our reaction to the visual expeerience than by anything inherent in the narrative. The film’s climax, much like Wild at Heart’s, involves our protagonist being visited by an angelic presence. In Wild at Heart, the appearance of the Good Witch is a supernatural conceit used to bring us to a more traditional emotional closure. We can easily read her appearance as Sailor’s hallucination, and the reality the film inhabits is restored at the end. In FWWM, the walls between reality and dream are broken down. After dying, Laura finds herself in the red room, with Agent Cooper. She is visited by an angel and cries, coming to terms with her fate. The climax functions solely on an emotional level. One can use the series to piece together what Cooper is doing there with her, but Lynch is not concerned with giving any sort of definitive answer. He prefers to let the viewer find their own understanding of the moment. This is a strategy he will refine for Mulholland Dr.

The other major change for Fire Walk With Me is in the gender of the protagonist. For the first time, Lynch focuses on a female main character. The kind of suffering that Laura experiences is similar to what Dorothy Valens goes through in Blue Velvet; however, FWWM removes the intermediary (Jeffery) and directly engages with what Laura is going through. I would consider Fire Walk With Me the first piece of his ‘Women in Trouble’ trilogy, which also includes Mulholland Dr. and Inland Empire. All three films are devoted to exploring the subjective reality of a woman who experience deep pain on a journey through a variety of splintered realities. The follow-up to FWWM, Lost Highway, more directly inspires Mulholland Dr. It tells the same basic story, with a similarly structured subjective narrative. However, that film drifted further than ever from Lynch’s traditional fifties aesthetic, with a gritty nineties urban look and a soundtrack by Trent Reznor.

Mulholland Dr. began life as a TV pilot, and after not being picked up, Lynch was given the funding to expand it into a feature. Mulholland Dr. functions as something of a ‘greatest hits’ project for Lynch, merging virtually all of his trademark themes and visual tropes into one film. The movie starts by following a naïve Hollywood starlet named Betty, whose “aw shucks” mentality is decidedly out of place in contemporary Hollywood. She has come from a small town that is probably not much different from Lumberton, with the goal of making it in the movie business. MD represents a growth beyond the small town mentality that informed his earlier work. Lynch had grown up personally, and the Hollywood milieu was now his primary reference point. The opening parts of the film could be read as a reflection on Lynch’s own conflicted feelings about coming to Hollywood, struggling to maintain his initial optimism in a corrupt environment.

As in Blue Velvet, Betty finds herself drawn into a world of mystery, gradually discovering the dark side of this shiny town. In its first half, the film’s narrative resembles Wild at Heart, focusing on a good heroine in a bad world. Betty is talented and would be able to make it, if not for the forces of corruption out to stop her. We again see a vast conspiracy operating behind the surface of things, and Lynch uses this as an opportunity to indulge in flights of surrealism, such as putting tiny Michael Anderson into a full sized body suit. As in Wild at Heart, this conspiracy is less about narrative specifics than just the presence of a vast darkness out to keep our heroine down. The intercutting of the two groups allows Lynch to have an optimistic, happy protagonist, but still maintain a sense of menace. The first hour or so is structurally very similar to Wild at Heart, progressing the story of our heroine and the conspiracy equally, the menace of the latter hanging over the happiness of the former.

The first half also shares many stylistic similarities with Wild at Heart. Betty’s manner of speech is similar to the enthusiastic, fifties inspired language of Sailor and Lula. The influence of that period is most evident in the scene at the film set, which features a gang of period extras singing the classic fifties song “Sixteen Reasons.” There are moments of incidental weirdness, such as the sudden appearance of a creepy looking bum between the Winkie’s, or Adam’s encounter with the Cowboy. These scenes are used as an opportunity for Lynch to showcase his visual prowess and indulge his visual tendencies, such as the red curtains of Mr. Roque’s office and the flickering light of the corral.

The Cowboy seems to have access to some kind of supernatural power, and, as in other Lynch work, that power is signified by his impact on electrical systems in the area. Adam is skeptical upon encountering him, but as the latter part of the film reveals, he does seem in touch with a deeper power. The idea of other dimensional figures who move through the Earth emerged in Twin Peaks and continued in Lost Highway. This is a development from Wild at Heart, which featured odd, but earthbound characters. The exception is The Good Witch, though she could easily be read as Sailor’s hallucination, not an actual other dimensional being.

After playing the first half of the film with a traditional narrative structure, Lynch begins to warp the world, bringing the surrealism of FWWM or Lost Highway to the fore. As things unfold, we find out that the film’s first half is actually a fantasy constructed by Diane, a suicidal actress who has failed both professionally and in her relationship with Camilla, her former lover, now rival. In retrospect, it is apparent that the film’s first half is a purely mental construction. Yet, Lynch presents it without any obvious signifiers of subjectivity. Ironically, the film’s second half, which shows the ‘reality’ of what happened, presents events in a fractured chronology that immerses us completely in Diane’s mental reality.

This difference is evidenced most notably by the shot choice. The first half very rarely uses shots that express something outside of an objective narrative reality. In the fantasy world, Lynch uses classical film language. In the ‘real world’ segments, he uses a number of first person shots, such as Diane’s stumble towards her bed before the opening credits, or the blurring shots of the ceiling when she is crying and masturbating. Time transitions occur through shifting focus, meant to mimic the associative process of memory. These overt stylistic choices are different from the more restrained cinematography of the first half, or Wild at Heart.

The central turning point of the film is the Club Silencio scene, the transition point between the linear narrative of the first half and the fractured moments of the second half. The sequence contains nearly all of Lynch’s signature elements, such as red curtains, blue electrical light, musical performance, lip synching, 50s music and a moment of pure transcendence. When Betty cries, it is much like Laura in Fire Walk With Me, or the Polish woman in Inland Empire, she does not necessarily know why she’s crying, it is just this feeling that an emotional journey is at its end. The high-pitched, emotional female vocal over this is another Lynch trademark, with Rebecca Del Rio following in the tradition of Julee Cruise.

The scene is integral to the narrative, but it also functions as a standalone setpiece. The film’s main characters stop their forward progression to sit down and watch a performance. We watch that performance with them, marveling at it in the same way that they do. The sequence’s narrative function is to create a moment of epiphany, when the fantasy world Diane has built for herself crumbles. Yet, on the first viewing, no one actually knows this is happening. Rather, the scene is designed to present a performance that will affect the viewer in the same way it affects Betty. Like her, we are emotionally moved, but unclear exactly why. The emotion of the scene allows us to accept whatever comes after, helping the viewer move past an analytical approach, to accept a narrative progression based solely on emotion. More than any other sequence in his oeuvre, Club Silencio captures the mystery and wonder that makes Lynch films so special. By transcending traditional narrative construction, he is able to touch the viewer on a deeper emotional level.

After this scene, the film breaks with the mannered acting and fifties style of the first half to present a harsh, ‘realistic’ world. The contrast between Naomi Watts as Betty and her performance as Diane is startling, the wide eyed enthusiasm she had in the first half is totally gone. In these moments, we witness someone who has lost the dream of love that propels all Lynch heroes. In Wild at Heart, Lula and Sailor are both kept alive by their love for each other. When Diane loses Camilla to Adam, she completely disengages from the world and descends into darkness and misery, a misery we are immersed in through the subjective construction of the film’s second half. So, in Mulholland Dr., the film justifies the first half’s stylization by revealing that it is Betty’s fantasy.

So, Mulholland Dr.’s second half acts as a defense against critics who claim he indulges in weirdness for weirdness’ sake. Whereas the stylized, fifties style behavior was previously presented as straightforward narrative reality, it is now written off as only a fantasy. It is the equivalent of having Sailor wake up in prison, alone after singing “Love Me Tender,” a complete subversion of the narrative reality created by the rest of the film. What the film does is play out the dream of the robins from Blue Velvet as an extended fantasy sequence, then show how that dream was lost in reality. The same values are espoused, but Lynch is more nuanced in his distinction between good and evil. It is no longer a vast conspiracy that keeps our heroine down; it is her own capacity for jealousy and evil.

In addition, the structure makes it easier to justify the first half’s narrative digressions. Viewing all that happens as Diane’s fantasy gives added meaning to scenes like the two men at Winkie’s or the hitman’s botched murder. Knowing that Diane has made this reality, it’s possible to connect everything to her own mental problems. So, in addition to being an entertaining scene in its own right, the botched hit also indicates her hope that he failed to kill Camilla.

What makes the film especially challenging is that there is no clear in film explanation for what happens. The camera journeys into the blue box, and then everything is different on the other side. We never hear exactly why the person we knew as Betty is now Diane; rather we must use the fragmented events we do see as a map for constructing a narrative. In interviews, Lynch hesitates to disclose his own intentions in constructing the film. Rather, he encourages each viewer to find the answers on his/her own terms. That definitively places him within the art cinema mode.

By constructing the film in this manner, we have a different relation to the central human darkness than in Wild at Heart. Here, the second half of the film is designed to show the way that Diane’s jealousy has warped her from the good person she wants to be into someone who’s capable of having someone she loves murdered. In her fantasy, she is the victim of a massive conspiracy designed to keep her down. In reality, she just didn’t make it, and her guilt and jealousy overwhelm any goodness within. In Blue Velvet and Wild at Heart, Lynch presents a vision of love overcoming darkness, but in Diane, we see someone who has lost sight of that love. She has only herself to blame for what happens, and the cold reality she experiences is a contrast to the peppy fantasy world she created. Lynch moved from exploring the underlying evil in the outside world to exploring the underlying evil within us all.

In the film’s final moments, we see Diane haunted by the dream of what could have been. The smiling, happy old couple, the judges of the jitterbug contest that first sent her off to Hollywood are now menacing figures, plaguing her thoughts. In both this film and Inland Empire, homeless people are used to show the ultimate fear of failure for those in Hollywood. The bum here is who Diane could be, she is already ugly on the inside, having chosen to kill Camilla, and in her emotional spiral, she could easily become that person who lives on the streets. The bum releases his counterpoint, her ultimate hope for what she could be. It was the old people who inspired her to go to Hollywood in the first place, and now the loss of her dream haunts her to the point of death. This is a critical difference from Wild at Heart, in which Sailor has a momentary lapse in belief, but soon returns to the right path and goes after Lula. Diane has transgressed a line and lost her optimism, now that hope for a better world is a mocking, frightening thing.

Unlike the similarly challenging Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me and Lost Highway, Mulholland Dr. was successful, and generally hailed as a return to form for Lynch. I would argue that is because the film foregrounds the same narrative and visual pleasures present in Blue Velvet. The film’s colors pop in the same way, much easier to watch than the darker pallets of the two previous films. Also, the film’s structure creates an easier to understand dichotomy between ‘real’ and ‘fantasy’ than Lost Highway. There, identities shift in a fluid way, without easy explanation. MD, while constantly playing with subjectivity, is easier to divide into ‘real’ and ‘fantasy’ segments. So, the structure turns the viewer into a detective, seeking the answer to the mystery. This viewing strategy is emphasized by the ten clues Lynch included in the DVD to guide viewers through the film.

The very idea of giving clues seems to go against Lynch’s primary motive, which is to create a cinema that is as reliant as the viewer’s interpretation as what is actually in the film, to give meaning. In talking about Lost Highway, he said that he had a specific idea of what happened, but he would never say what it is because that would deprive the audience of the fun of guessing. The distributor likely saw the clues as a way to assuage viewers who were confused by the narrative ambiguity. Of course, the clues are so vague, they will only give the viewer a context for exploring the film, not provide the final answer.

With the follow-up to Mulholland Dr., Inland Empire, Lynch uses the same basic structure and motifs as MD, but spins them into an even more abstract narrative. Rather than shifting between two clearly delineated identities, Laura Dern’s character moves through a variety of realities, constantly shifting character and purpose. The basic plot is the same, showing the debilitating effects of L.A. on an actress, frequently equating acting with prostitution. The film’s finale takes place on the L.A. streets, with Laura Dern dying next to two homeless drug addicts. The camera then pulls back to reveal that this incredibly emotional scene was in fact a part of the film we saw Laura Dern involved with much earlier in the film. Initially, the scene in which Niki and Billy have sex, in heavy blue light, provides the moment of dimensional transition, but as the film proceeds, identities and worlds shift without clear delineation. However, the film still has the same themes at its core. The film ends with two women returning to their families, happy to be back at home after the lengthy surreal quest that occupied the narrative.

In the same way that Wild at Heart expanded on the 50s inspired thematic paradigm established by Blue Velvet, Mulholland Dr. uses the tropes of Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me and Lost Highway to cement a new paradigm for Lynch’s films. He has moved beyond stories of corruption in small towns, to instead show the way that Los Angeles can corrupt innocent people, the way that the city of dreams becomes a city of nightmares. This is a logical evolution because Lynch himself has moved beyond small town life. He is part of the L.A. world he chronicles in Mulholland Dr., and now he is spinning the same fantasies he created about the place he grew up in the place he lives now. As always, he is interested in looking beneath the surface and playing out intense psychodrama in situations that are normally just accepted at face value. Where the camera once dove beneath the green lawns of a beautiful town to find the scurrying bugs underneath, he now looks past personal facades to explore the darkness present in individuals.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

The Dark Knight

One of my most controversial posts to date was my negative review of Batman Begins, a film that was universally beloved by seemingly everyone but me and the couple of people I went to see it with. It was like I had seen a bad copy of the movie, since there was such a disconnect between my perception of the film and the way most people saw it.

But, as the hype mounted for its sequel, The Dark Knight, I too got swept up, and after getting out of work last night, I wandered up to Union Square to try to see the film. As I approached the theater, I saw a massive line of people stretching round the block, and I thought, I’m not seeing this movie tonight. I hadn’t seen lines like this in a long time, and the film does seem to be on its way to the biggest opening of all time. So, I headed back this afternoon to see the film at a 12:30 showing that was sold out by the time the film began. This thing is huge, and thankfully, I can say that I really enjoyed the film. Some of the flaws from Begins carry over, but most of the bad stuff from Begins is gone, and we’ve got the addition of one really interesting new character, and one all time classic character.

This movie, much like the original Tim Burton Batman film, is made by the Joker. Ledger is absolutely magnetic on screen, as a kind of possessed entity, incarnation of chaos itself. He doesn’t have an agenda or master plan, he’s only there to sow trouble, and show people how easily it can all fall apart. Batman shows that one man can change the world for the better, the Joker shows how one man can destroy it. And, like any force of chaos, it’s fun to watch him tear things down.

Unlike some other people, I don’t think Ledger’s Joker is a definitive take on the character, because the very nature of the character precludes a definitive take. I think he’s perfect for this film, in the same way that Nicholson was perfect for Burton’s Batman film. I still think the Nicholson performance is brilliant, but it would not have worked here. Both Burton Batman films go for an operatic craziness, which is very much about comic booky over the top images that don’t hew to real world logic. This film places Batman in more of a thriller milieu, a Michael Mann kind of world, and the Joker is believable as a person in this ‘real’ world.

As is Harvey Dent as an all purpose hope vessel who recalls John F. Kennedy, and more recently, Barack Obama. He’s the shining light, fighting corruption in a city where that act was once thought hopeless. The beginning of the movie seems designed to set up a world where Batman’s way is working, crime is down and things are getting better. But, that world can’t stay.

Harvey’s arc worked really well for me in the first half of the movie, before he became Two Face. Again, the film chooses to work in a realistic milieu, and his battle against political corruption works in that world. In fact, I’d argue his fight against the Joker works so well, Batman is rendered essentially superfluous in his own movie. If I had to choose one expendable character in the film, it would be Batman, who doesn’t really work in the film until the second half. The action sequence where he steals the guy from Hong Kong felt unnecessary, only there to give the film’s first act a boost.

The plotting surrounding the money and gang warfare is generally besides the point, so those scenes succeed and fall on their own merits. The ones with The Joker work as demonstration of just how crazy he is. The pencil moment is an instant classic, as is the scene where he burns money. That’s an essential one because it positions the character as an agent of chaos rather than a traditional criminal. He is Loki, the essential reflection of Batman.

Unfortunately, the film doesn’t really do much with the Batman character. An essential part of the Batman/Joker relationship is the idea that Batman loves doing his job as much as the Joker loves doing his. Here, The Joker feels that connection, he is completed by Batman, but you get the sense that Bruce has no real desire to be Batman, that it’s a duty rather than something he enjoys. That’s a valid take on the character, and I think it’s integral to the story they’re telling in this film. Batman is taken less as a person than as a symbol for the city to pour its hopes and dreams on. The white knight/dark knight dichotomy is executed really well on a thematic level, but it also means that the Batman/Bruce Wayne character is something of a cipher, who seems to change to suit the needs of the narrative.

Now, one could argue that the film is about The Joker, the agent of chaos, entering an ordered society and disrupting it. So, it would make sense that The Joker would have all the agency in the film, and everyone else would exist in reaction to him. But, because The Joker is the one doing everything, he is going to be the most interesting one, and when he’s not on screen, the film is nowhere near as strong as it is when he is there.

Personally, I would have liked to see some more of the spirit of Frank Miller’s ‘Goddamn Batman’ turn up in this film, and have Bruce simultaneously hating The Joker and sort of getting off on the fact that he’s got a worthy foe. I think that’s where the film gets caught between its commitment to realism and making a character like Batman work. Batman is on the more realistic end of superheroes, but he’s still a guy who dresses up like a bat and fights crime. When you see him in the shadows, the characters work, but when it’s a dialogue scene with two regular people and Batman, it feels kind of weird. Anyway, the realism means that we can’t really have a Bruce who enjoys fighting The Joker because this version of Batman is totally committed to cleaning up the city. He’s about the end goal, creating a sustainable order for the city, not the process. There’s some playing with the idea that he is addicted to being Batman, but I feel like the writing and Bale’s performance doesn’t let me really understand what the character is feeling. There’s so few moments of joy for him, for Rachel’s point about him not giving up Batman to work, we have to feel like he loves being Batman, and though they tried to convey that point, it just didn’t work.

The publicity for the film has cited Frank Miller’s Dark Knight Returns as an inspiration, but, apart from the title, I really don’t see many similarities between the works. Miller’s Batman is a revolutionary figure, he would have no time for an establishment politician, that’s what Superman would do, Batman is all about disrupting existing societal order and trying to build something new. Never is this more clear than in the call to revolution at the end of Dark Knight Strikes Again, as Batman strikes at heart of the military-industrial complex and tears it down in a glorious bit of social revolution. In that incarnation of the character, Batman is the agent of chaos, disrupting a corrupt social order. The films always cast Batman as a guy who’s trying to hold the city together, he’s order and the villains are chaos, which means the villains are always more interesting. Dark Knight Batman or Goddamn Batman are more interesting because they are fighting against existing social order and trying to inspire people to do something new. But, it’s also notable that in those Batman stories, Batman isn’t fighting a specific villain, he’s fighting a bigger societal ill. This is a film about The Joker invading Gotham City and causing chaos, you can’t have Batman trying to create more chaos to stop him.

I had a few other issues with the film. One of the major ones was the nonsensical plot development with Gordon supposedly dying, then just coming back from the dead for no apparent reason. Why didn’t they let his wife in on the plan? But, more importantly, why do this narrative development at all. I thought it was a bold move to have Gordon die, then all of a sudden he’s back and that inexplicable happening meant that when Rachel actually died later in the movie, I wasn’t sad, I was thinking, “so is she really dead? I guess so, but who can say for sure?” Once you decide that dead doesn’t mean dead, once you screw around with the audience’s trust, you can’t go back. It doesn’t kill the film, but it’s a really stupid choice that exists for no real reason.

Another issue is more general, and that’s some finale problems. I think the film really peaks with The Joker/Police/Batman chase on the freeway. It’s a fantastic action sequence, The Joker teetering on the edge of that truck, the Ewok trick on that helicopter, all leading to the amazing moment where the truck flips on itself. The Joker stumbles out and we’re finally going to get our big Joker/Batman confrontation, alone on this huge city street. That’s great stuff, and the action sequences at the end don’t really top it.

For one, I have some issues with the Two Face character. I think the makeup looked a bit unbelievable. It was cool, but in that universe, it just didn’t work. And, I think the whole leaving it to chance thing, while integral to the archetype of the character, didn’t really work here. It was pushing it, but I could see Harvey deciding to take things into his own hands after what happened to him, but I find it hard to believe he’d have so much ‘fun’ doing it. I guess the point is he was infected by The Joker, but I think it would have been more thematically effective to cast him as a deformed version of Batman, who isn’t going to work within the system anymore, he’s going to kill rather than just capture. Basically, taking the idea that the system is broken and he doesn’t want to work within it anymore.

I’m not sure if it was intentional, but the film featured a surprising number of scenes that seemed quoted directly from the previous 90s Batman films. The whole choose the girl/sidekick conflict came right from Batman Forever, the ending battle with The Joker hanging upside down from a huge building and Batman holding him up, and the attack on the Mayor while he’s giving a press conference about keeping the city safe were exact pulls. And, the whole "You're a freak, like me" exchange is exactly what The Penguin says to Batman in Returns, only there the comment is actually integrated into the psychological makeup of the character, here it's thrown out there to tell us something that's not really evident in the film itself.

The film’s final act runs into some problems. The whole sonar goggles thing seemed basically pointless, and I think they lost sight of the core character conflict for too long. The lengthy sequence with the two boats was thematically relevant, but hard to engage with emotionally because we don’t care about these people. I suppose it was meant to be the real defeat of the Joker when nobody would pull the trigger, a demonstration that the city still had order, but it only worked thematically, not emotionally.

But, the return to order is rarely as interesting as throwing everything into chaos. The best shot in the film was The Joker hanging out of a police car, wind in his hair, an image that summed up everything that was going at that moment in the film. Even the Joker in nurse outfit, which could have just been goofy, felt strangely menacing.

But, the film’s final scene was kind of a letdown. With The Joker off the board, we get the hostage situation with plot devices 1, 2 and 3, aka the Gordon family. They are ciphers, used as a shortcut so the film won’t have to build real, emotionally credible characters to threaten. And, it bothered me that they used Gordon’s son as the central kid, why not throw the fans a little nod and have Barbara Gordon, his daughter, be the one whose faith in Batman is vindicated, setting up her eventual transformation to Batgirl in the future.

It would have also given us another female presence in the film. Rachel is also pretty much a cipher, it’s totally a man’s world here in Gotham. Part of what I love so much about Batman Returns is the way that it’s a meditation on female subjugation in contemporary society. She’s the most explicitly feminist superhero in cinema to date, and when you look at a film like this, it’s clear that women don’t typically have a place in the genre world. It’s his interactions with Selina that make Bruce a more compelling character in that film, and integrate the personal life and the professional life in a way that this film doesn’t.

I think there’s too many issues with the film to call it an unqualified masterpiece, but I still loved it. I think Ledger was brilliant, absolutely captivating whenever he was on screen. Aaron Eckhart’s Harvey Dent was also great, pre Two Face, and the pounding, moody score did a great job of building atmosphere. I still don’t think much of Bale’s Batman, but the film on the whole was excellent.

Friday, July 18, 2008

Odds and Ends

I’ve got a bunch of random stuff to post about, so read on for a grab bag of topics that may be of interest to you, the reader.

Watchmen Trailer

I’ve made no secret of my lack of support for the Watchmen film. I just don’t think there’s any point to doing it, it’s not called comics’ Citizen Kane because it should be a movie, it’s called that because it’s the ultimate use of the medium to tell a story. Though the story is good, I don’t think a film can capture what made the book so special.

But, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t excited when I saw the trailer had been released. The trailer has its moments, seeing Jon building the structure on Mars was amazing, and there were a few other moments where it was just cool to see them jump off the page. Dr. Manhattan doesn’t look bad, but the whole thing has a very artificial feel. It captures the feel of the art, but there’s a reason superhero comics usually aren’t drawn in a photorealistic style. The characters just don’t look right as real people. The Rorshach design is very cool, but translated to reality, it doesn’t quite make it.

My other big issue is I still have no faith in Zack Snyder’s ability to make the characters feel real. All the dialogue in the trailer is pretty bad, and I can’t imagine him capturing the middle age melancholy of Dan and Lori. But, we’ll see. If nothing else, it looks to be the most faithful Alan Moore film adaptation so far.

As a side note, if any Alan Moore comic is begging for a film adaptation, it’s Miracleman. It’s not as technically ambitious as most of his other major works, and offers plenty of opportunity for big screen spectacle. I see a two film series, one covering the first two books, through the birth issue, the other covering Olympus. But, the rights situation is so fucked on that, I’m probably breaking copyright even thinking about it.

The Dark Knight

Speaking of downbeat comic book adaptations, I’ve made the decision to go see The Dark Knight this weekend, with an open mind. I read Grant Morrison’s review of the film on his blog, and that, combined with the countless other good reviews, sold me. I didn’t like Batman Begins, but maybe this will be different. Certainly Heath Ledger’s Joker seems like he’ll be worth seeing, and between him and Harvey Dent, how much time can we have for the Mysterious Whisperer, aka Batman. I’m hoping this isn’t a Lost season two situation, where I give something another chance because it’s getting such insanely good buzz and wind up disappointed again. But, I want to like it. I hope I like it. We’ll see.

Doctor Horrible

I watched the first two episodes of Joss’s online musical last night and thoroughly enjoyed them. I wasn’t expecting that much, it seemed to play to all the goofier traits that bother me about Joss’s work, but it totally worked. There was a real emotional undercurrent in the story world, and it merged well with the more over the top elements. Horrible/Billy reminds me a lot of Andrew and his fellow Trio members, right down to the use of a freeze ray, but it’s ripe territory, so I don’t mind going back.

I think it’s interesting that outside of the vampires, almost all of Whedon’s male characters are ineffectual and intimidated by women. It reminds me a lot of Claremont’s work, where all the strength is in the females, and males struggle to deal with that strength. How will it play out in the final episode? I’ll find out tomorrow.

My Emmy Nominations 2008

So, the Emmy nominations were announced today. I wasn't hugely thrilled with them, it was great to see Mad Men get a lot of respect, but almost all my other favorite shows were pretty much shut out. How would I have done it? Read on...

Actor (Comedy):
Alec Baldwin – Jack on “30 Rock”
Jemaine Clement – Jemaine on “Flight of the Conchords”
Ricky Gervais – Andy on “Extras”
Stephen Merchant – Darren on “Extras”
Tracy Morgan – Tracy on “30 Rock”


I combined supporting and lead actors for comedy, since I don’t watch enough comedy shows to fill both categories. So, we’ve got a dense bunch of talent here. Gervais’s work in the last episode of Extras wasn’t the funniest performance, but it was the best. Unlike other people in the “awkward” comedy movement, he always remembers the humanity underneath, and that makes it both funnier, and more emotional.

Actress (Comedy):
Tina Fey - Liz Lemon on “30 Rock”
Jenna Fischer – Pam on “The Office”
Melora Hardin – Jan on “The Office”
Ashley Jensen – Maggie on “Extras”
Angela Kinsey – Angela on “The Office”


People may point the American Office’s Pam as the soul of the show, but she’s just an echo of what Gervais can do with his characters, and Ashley Jensen was brilliant on her tragic path through the last episode of the series. I think some elements of the episode were overplayed, but she was great.

Supporting Actor (Drama):
James Callis – Baltar on “Battlestar Galactica”
Austin Nichols – John on “John From Cincinnati”
Ed O’Neil - Bill on “John From Cincinnati”
Andre Royo – Bubbles on “The Wire”
Michael K. Williams – Omar on “The Wire”


Perhaps the richest category this year, there’s another five or ten people you could easily fit here from John From Cincinnati or The Wire alone. However, my favorite supporting performance was Ed O’Neil as Bill. Shifting between a prickly surface persona and the emotionally wounded person underneath, he was consistently the more entertaining character on screen, be it delivering lengthy soliloquies to his bird, or shouting “Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ!” No One was more fun to watch this year.

Supporting Actress (Drama):
Ginnifer Goodwin – Margene on “Big Love”
Christine Hendricks – Joan on “Mad Men”
Keala Kennelly – Kai on “John From Cincinnati”
Emily Rose – Cass on “John From Cincinnati”
Katee Sackhoff – Kara on “Battlestar Galactica”


Katee Sackhoff was brilliant this season, fusing the religious destiny Starbuck with the hardass military Starbuck into a really compelling new evolution of the character. It’s a testament to her performance that I find it hard to imagine her in another role. She just is Starbuck.

Lead Actor:
Kyle Chandler – Eric Taylor on “Friday Night Lights”
Jon Hamm – Don Draper on “Mad Men”
Edward James Olmos - Adama on “Battlestar Galactica”
David Tennant – The Doctor on “Doctor Who”
Brian Van Holt – Butchie on “John From Cincinnati”


Jon Hamm looks like he stepped right out of a 50s movie, and it’s his very guarded performance that makes the series work. With another actor, the mystery surrounding Don’s backstory could have felt contrived or teasing, here it just plays out. Don never gives anything away, and it’s not until the final scene of the season that we get a real open, emotional moment with him. But, the genius of Hamm is that we know what he’s feeling the whole time, even when the character himself won’t face it.

Lead Actress:
Connie Britton – Tami on “Friday Night Lights”
January Jones – Betty on “Mad Men”
Mary McDonnell – Laura Roslin on “Battlestar Galactica”
Catherine Tate – Donna on “Doctor Who”
Jeanne Tripplehorn – Barb on “Big Love”


In her first appearance on the show, she was rather annoying, and not someone I wanted to spend a whole season with. However, over the course of Doctor Who’s fourth season, Catherine Tate’s Donna became the best companion on the show to date, matching Tennant’s swerves between ecstasy and tragedy. I have some issues with how it happened, but her acting in the final episode, as we watched the person she’d become get torn away made the moment one of the most excruciating character fates I’ve ever seen.

Guest Actor
Julian Bleach – Davros on “Doctor Who” (Journey’s End)
Bernard Cribbins – Wilf on “Doctor Who” (Journey’s End)
Callum Keith Rennie – Leoben on “Battlestar Galactica” (The Road Less Traveled)
David Schwimmer – Greenzo on “30 Rock” (Greenzo)
Paul Schulze – Hobo on “Mad Men” (The Hobo Code)


I was talking about the show with someone, and she said that Bernard Cribbins’ Wilf was exactly like her grandfather. I felt the same way, I feel like Wilf tapped into this archetypal grandfather role, such that you were instantly emotionally attached to him. In “Journey’s End,” it’s him telling the Doctor “But she was better with you” that breaks open the emotional floodgates, and his final speech to the Doctor is a beautiful capper for the season.

Guest Actress
Ellen Burstyn – Nancy Dutton on “Big Love” (Take Me as I Am)
Camille Choudri – Jackie Tyler on “Doctor Who” (Journey’s End)
Edie Falco – CC on “30 Rock” (Goodbye Toby)
Alex Kingston – River Song on “Doctor Who” (Forest of the Dead)
Lucy Lawless – D’Anna on “Battlestar Galactica (Revelations)


Lucy Lawless walked onto the show in its second to last episode and immediately took control of everything. Her glee at knowing something that no one else does was wonderfully played, and she had a lot of fun with the role. It was great to have her back on the show, and hopefully she’ll be there for the whole season next time.

Best Writing:
“The Wheel”: Mad Men by Matthew Weiner and Robin Veitch
“His Visit, Day 5”: John From Cincinnati by Alix Lambert
“Forest of the Dead”: Doctor Who by Steven Moffat
“Late Editions”: The Wire by George Pelecanos
“Series Finale”: Extras by Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant


These are all absolutely brilliant episodes, each emotionally devastating in its own way, but I’ve got to give the respect to “Forest of the Dead.” The others are more about paying off year long arcs, “Forest” builds several worlds in the hour and brings them all to a smashing close in an emotionally wrenching, mind blowing hour. It’s one of the best episodes of new Who, and definitely the most well written. It’s basically everything I want from a piece of fiction.

Best Direction:
“The Wheel”: Mad Men by Matthew Weiner
“His Visit, Day 9”: John From Cincinnati by Daniel Minahan
“The Stolen Earth”: Doctor Who by Graeme Harper
“Late Editions”: The Wire by Joe Chapelle
“The Hub”: BSG by Paul Edwards


The other episodes are all downers, that push their characters through awful, awful things. But, can’t there be some joy in the world? “His Visit: Day 9,” the series finale of John From Cincinnati is pure joy from the opening frame on. The opening sequence of this episode is one of my favorite film moments ever, the soaring descent from the heavens to John and Shaun surfing to shore. It’s an unparalleled rush, the payoff of the entire series. The rest of the episode keeps the strong energy, particularly during the manic party sequence that closes the episode. The show went out on a high note.

Best Series (Comedy):
30 Rock
Extras
Flight of the Conchords
Pushing Daisies
The Office


Extras closed out its run with an emotional odyssey of a TV movie that was at once bitingly funny and really emotional. Gervais approaches comedy differently from anyone else. He stresses character and narrative arcs as much as laughs, and that means that we’re much more engaged with the material. It’s a great story on its own, the laughs are a bonus. I do think some of the musings on fame got a bit self indulgent, but there were enough great moments to keep it strong on the whole.


Best Series (Drama):
Battlestar Galactica
Doctor Who
John From Cincinnati
Mad Men
The Wire


These are all exceptional series. Doctor Who and Battlestar each had their strongest seasons yet, Mad Men had one of the greatest debut seasons of all time, and The Wire was up to the brilliant standard of its previous years. But, one show captivated me like no other, the much maligned, but brilliant John From Cincinnati. JFC was interesting on a narrative level, and featured some of the most fun characters on any series, but what made it so great was the spiritual nature of the series. It wasn’t like a normal show, it was a religious experience in the guise of an ensemble drama, and a window into one man’s view of the world. At its best, it worked like our minds do, dealing in symbols and dreams and archetypes as a way of understanding the world. It will be remembered as one of the most underappreciated series of all time, it’s just taking the world a while to catch up.

Total Nominations/Wins

The Wire - 5
John From Cincinnati – 8 (3)
Big Love - 3
Battlestar Galactica – 8 (2)
Mad Men – 7 (1)
Doctor Who – 9 (3)
Friday Night Lights - 2

Pushing Daisies - 1
Flight of the Conchords - 2
30 Rock - 6
The Office - 4
Extras – 5 (3)

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Generation Kill: 'Get Some' (1x01)

Like pretty much everyone else who watched the show, I loved The Wire, and have been eagerly anticipating the start of David Simon’s followup, Generation Kill. Generally, I don’t like war stories, I think the basic elements are all so similar, it’s become virtually impossible to do a war story that isn’t clichéd. Outside of Apocalypse Now, I’ve never really liked the genre. What made Apocalypse Now so amazing was the way it abandoned any pretense of objectivity and delved entirely into a psychological haze, an acid trip journey through the dark side of the human spirit that’s as much surreal mythological odyssey as it is the story of a war.

But, that’s not David Simon’s M.O. He’s all about objectivity and realism, presenting events without comment or context, just letting you get into the world. It worked wonderfully in The Wire, but I’m not sure the same approach will be as successful here. For one, there’s only seven episodes. After seven episodes, The Wire was a really good series, but I think the moments that most people remember are from the second half of the show, the longer it went on, the more complex and emotionally engaging it became. And, it’s going to be tough to give any of these characters real depth in only seven episodes.

Now, it’s not necessary for the characters to be really developed to tell a good story. It’s just I don’t feel like I’m really seeing anything new here. It probably doesn’t help that I watched Brian DePalma’s Redacted last week, a film that covers similar territory as the series. I didn’t feel like I was getting any real new insights into this world in the way that I did when watching The Wire.

I think part of the problem with the series is it has a much more traditional structure than The Wire did. The Wire used multiple perspectives to construct an entire world, and play our emotional attachments to the various characters against each other. We wanted the detail to catch Avon, but at the same time, we didn’t want Avon to be caught. Here, we don’t have that other perspective, so it’s only the viewer’s innate respect for human life that brings ambiguity. The Iraqis in the series, at least so far, are just conceptual, not people.

That’s not to say the show is bad, I think there are some interesting insights into Iraq, and the everyday, not combat-centered approach, is welcome. But, the show just didn’t jump out to me in the way that even the very first episode of The Wire did. The Wire made every cop show cliché feel fresh and real in a way I’d never seen. And, notably, it did so without the usual visual signifiers of realism. It was all in the performance and writing. Here, we’ve got a lot more shaky cam, close-ups and the like, but it feels less fresh, more what you’d expect from a show about Iraq.

Still, a lot of my issues with it stem from a personal bias against war stories. I’m hoping that the more unique elements come to the fore later on. I loved the scene where Person and the crew rip apart the letters from school children, and the drive into Iraq was amazing on a visual level. I’m hoping that it’ll just take some time to get past the expected elements and into something more emotionally engaging.

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Comic Book Movies: The Oncoming Darkness

In my review of All Star Batman and Robin, I touched briefly on the way that the Hollywood comic book film zeitgeist is about 20 years behind what’s happening in comics themselves. This is coming to the fore with the upcoming releases of The Dark Knight and Watchmen, the film successors to the two legendary comic book works that changed the medium, and may change the general public’s perception of superhero stories. But, the big names in comics are heading in a totally disparate direction. What does this disconnect mean for each medium, and where will comic book movies go in the future? Let us ponder.

I’ve discussed similar issues before, in the context of 300, a film I considered a failure. There are two kinds of comic book movies, ones that use the book as a jumping off point for the creator’s own interests, such as V For Vendetta or Batman Returns. Then, there’s the ultra-faithful slavish adaptation, like Sin City or the upcoming Watchmen. In the case of ultra faithful adaptations, I usually find the trailer more interesting than the film itself. In the case of Sin City, I was totally in love with the trailer, watched it many times and was eagerly awaiting the film. Then, the film itself was kind of a letdown. It wasn’t bad, but it didn’t give me anything that the book didn’t. It was just a straight adaptation, nothing was changed to make it specific to film. So, having already seen the film’s ‘gimmick’ in the trailer, the actual movie had nothing new to offer.

I think this gets to a deeper issue in both comics and films, which is the fact that writers/directors don’t make use of what the medium can do. So many comics today are clearly written as screenplay pitches, using the visual language of film, and doing nothing that’s unique to the comics medium. The very best comics usually do things that only can be done in comics, be it the complex juxtaposition of words and images in Watchmen and Flex Mentallo, or the philosophical/narrative interweaving in The Invisibles and Promethea. Even on a pure art level, a work like We3 is so alive and kinetic in a way only comics can do, using the panel layouts to construct atmosphere and make us feel things in a specific way. I want a work that really challenges me and makes me take my time reading the story.

Film is the same way, very few directors really use what the medium can offer to tell a story. I want a work that doesn’t feel like an adaptation, I want a work that you can’t imagine as anything but a movie. Think of a film like Irreversible or Terence Malick’s work, the use of camera movement and music creates a hypnotic atmosphere. An Irreversible novel would be pointless, but as a movie, it’s startling and powerful.

So, if a work is done well in its own medium, why do you want to adapt it any way? That’s how I feel about Watchmen, I don’t see anything that can be added, it’s like going to see a Beatles cover band, it might be cool for a bit, but it’s ultimately a hollow, non-artistic endeavor. I think characters like Batman and Superman are better suited to adaptation because they don’t have specific narratives. They are archetypal characters who can, and have been reimagined thousands of different ways. The 60s Batman and the Batman Begins Batman and equally valid visions of the character. My favorite superhero movie, and one of my favorite movies of all time, is Batman Returns, which exists at the intersection of classic Batman thematic interests and Tim Burton’s own thematic obsessions, producing a film that’s simultaneously distinctly Batman and distinctly Burton.

But, most comic book movies today require the director to have, or at least tell the media about his love of the source material. I’m sure we’ll hear countless interviews from Chris Nolan talking about how much he loves Frank Miller’s work. And yet, his film is totally out of synch with the kind of stories Miller is telling at the moment. That’s because superhero movies are still in the ‘dark age,’ while current comics have moved into an era that’s perhaps best known as the ‘prismatic age.’ We’ve still got a lot of that old angsty stuff out there, but even Frank is doing a more fun, over the top Batman. It’s the integration of everything that’s come before into a simultaneously dark and light storytelling, keeping the emotional weight of the dark age stories without sacrificing the fun of classic Silver Age stuff.

And, it’s that fun that I fear will be missing from superhero movies for a while. One of my major issues with Batman Begins was its relentless joylessness, from the gloomy brown cinematography to the angsty Christian Bale performance. I know Bale is beloved by all, but outside of his work in Velvet Goldmine, I’m not that big a fan. I can respect his craft, but I just don’t enjoy watching him on screen. He doesn’t love being the goddamn Batman, I can’t imagine Bale’s Batman doing the sort of crazy joyous stuff that even Dark Knight Returns Batman does, certainly not what we see from the Dark Knight Strikes Again or Goddamn Batman.

But, who am I to say that the Bale Batman isn’t a valid take on the character? Clearly it resonated with audiences. Why is it that people who decide to see a movie about a guy who dresses up in a bat suit and decides to fight crime also want it to be deadly self serious. I can understand wanting to engage with the fictional universe, but something in a movie should be fun, and I got no joy from watching Batman Begins.

So, you may say, you want your superheroes to be goofy and fun, why do you enjoy works like Miracleman and Watchmen? The short and snappy answer would be those works are just better. But, I think the real point is that those works are about something. The problem with so much of the dark, angsty superhero genre is that it’s not really about anything. The Dark Knight Returns is a meditation of the conservative movement and a deteriorating urban environment in the 80s. While the hardcore Batman action is the hook, it’s the political elements that give it substance. The same is true with Watchmen and Miracleman, they are incredible superhero stories, but also contain fascinating truths about the human condition. Miracleman is a philosophical parable wrapped up in a superhero story, and the last issue is one of the most exciting explorations of a fictional world I’ve ever experienced.

So, if we’re headed into the dark time of superhero movies, will we ever get out and see the light? Will audiences only accept the heavy intensity of The Dark Knight and Watchmen, or would they also be interested in some Silver Age style craziness? I think the general public is less inclined to like the sort of wacky stories that Alan Moore and Grant Morrison have come to embrace. People who don’t come from a comics background are going to find it easier to embrace a Batman who’s right out of a crime thriller rather than a Batman who goes into his sci-fi closet so he can insert the Ultramarines into an infant universe.

And, to be honest, I was the same way for a long time. That’s what Flex Mentallo is all about, the way that as adolescents, we only embrace the darkest stories and claim that’s what’s ‘real.’ But, I’ve come to embrace wackier stories now, be it Silver Age Superman or the Goddamn Batman. They’re out there, and a heavier Batman movie or Watchmen movie won’t take them off the shelves. And, considering how badly Hollywood messed up ‘fun’ Batman, perhaps it’s for the best that this current series of films are as heavy as they are.

Sunday, July 06, 2008

Doctor Who: 'Journey's End' (4x13)

This season has easily been my favorite Who season so far, it’s been the most consistently great, never more so than in the last run of episodes. This episode, much like its predecessor “The Stolen Earth,” is a huge, messy over the top action spectacle. I have a bunch of issues with the way the episode was executed, but I think in general, the good outweighs the bad.

I think the episode was designed to take you on a journey through intense darkness, the whole reality bomb thing, up to the heights of the Earth being towed back by the Doctor’s “Children of Time,” then back down to the tempered happiness of Rose and the alternate Doctor, and ultimately down to deep sadness as we watch the Donna we know die. But, it’s frustrating to end the season on such a down note. At the end of ‘Doomsday,’ it was tragic to watch the Doctor and Rose ripped apart, but at least she had the memory of what she’d been through. Donna doesn’t even get that, she loses the person she’d become, the person who believed in herself in a way she never had before, and she’ll never even know who she was.

It’s an awful fate, and a lot of my mixed feelings on the finale come from the fact that I feel really frustrated, and I know I’m supposed to feel that frustration, but it’s still tough to face. I think it would have been a better fate for her to die, to burn out saving the universe. Now, she may be a hero elsewhere in the universe, but on Earth, she’ll never know what she’s capable of. The notion that if she remembers what she had done, it will burn up her mind is particularly tragic because there’s no hope, and Wilf and her mother have to live with her knowing what she was and unable to tell her.

It’s a testament to how good this season was that Rose feels so much like an afterthought. I remember before this season started, I was so excited when I heard that Rose was coming back. That was the story I wanted to see concluded, even after her year long absence, she hung over the show. But, Donna took control of the show this year, she proved herself an even better partner for the Doctor than Rose was, and by this point, even the somewhat happy ending for Rose is overwhelmed by the tragedy of what happened to Donna.

But, let me track back a bit. After an intense week of speculation about what the hell the Doctor would regenerate into, the whole tension was dissolved with a wave of his hand. It was a basically untenable cliffhanger, there was no way they were going to ditch Tennant at this point in the series, so it was probably best to just get it out of the way and move on. Still, I couldn’t help but feel a bit disappointed when everything was resolved so quickly.

From there, we move all the pieces into place for the big showdown. It was good to see Mickey and Jackie back, I was pondering where they were last week. Even though neither of them really gets much to do in the episode, it was nice to see them there. You could certainly make the argument that a lot of the cameos in the episode were pointless. There’s no intrinsic narrative reason that the Torchwood crew, Luke and Mr. Smith, Mickey and Jackie, or even Martha show up in the episode. But, I think there are two important reasons for them all to be here.

One is to raise the stakes of the conflict. I love that this is something so huge the Doctor calls in everyone. It never made sense to me why the characters on Buffy wouldn’t call Angel and his crew when things were going really bad. From a logistics point of view, it would become distracting for the viewer. The crossover itself would become the event rather than the story that each individual show had been building to. That’s why I don’t really mind the fact that most of the characters don’t end up doing too much. Sarah Jane gets her big moment, and even without having seen the episode with her and Davros, you can tell how affected she was by meeting him previously. Similarly, it’s good to just see Mickey again and get a bit of closure on his arc through this episode.

Davros was one of the better villains the show has had. In the first seasons, it’s the sheer numbers that make the Daleks or Cybermen such a threat. Last year, it was The Master’s insane personality, this year, we get a mix of both. Davros reminded me a lot of Star Wars’ The Emperor. The whole episode in general reminded me a lot of Star Wars. I write a lot about Morrison and Moore as influences on the way I view fiction, but before all that, it was Star Wars that first really got me into film and sci-fi. Those films still lurk in my subconsciousness, and a work like this hits something deep inside. Watching Davros rant about detonating the reality bomb hit me on every level. It’s appropriate to watch this on July 4th weekend, since it’s the best summer blockbuster you’re going to see this year.

But, unlike the vast majority of blockbusters, the show never stops being about the characters. All the spectacle is there to illuminate character points. We watch the Doctor standing helpless, watching what he has done to the people he’s met. Davros is willing to detonate the reality bomb to destroy all of existence, and the Doctor’s companions appear to be willing to do the same to destroy the Daleks. At that moment, how different are they, each the creator of an army bent on total destruction. I like that the Doctor reaches out to Davros at the end of the episode and tries to save him. If he could save Davros, it would be the ultimate vindication of his nonviolent approach to problem solving. But, Davros is unwilling to give the Doctor that satisfaction, and chooses apparent death instead.

Elsewhere, we see Donna create the new hybrid DoctorDonna. The whole second Doctor felt a little contrived. I think it would have been fine to have Donna touch the hand and then get the time lord powers on her own. We already know she’s connected to the original Doctor, and don’t need a second one around. Of course, he’s in there primarily to provide a happy resolution for the Rose storyline. It would have been too heavy to have the Doctor leave Rose, and then mindwipe Donna.

For whatever reason, the entire finale seems designed to move the Doctor back to where he was at the start of the series, struggling with guilt about destroying the Daleks. When I first watched the show, I didn’t know that this Time War was a new thing. I thought that it had always been part of the mythology, so even though I could tell the Eccleston Doctor was troubled by stuff, I didn’t think of it as directly related to his choice to kill all the Daleks. So, Rose gets the chance to rehibilitate the Doctor again, only this time the Doctor remembers everything they’ve been through. It’s kind of a dizzying mess of identity, the Tennant Doctor with the problems of the Eccleston Doctor, but actually human duplicate of each of them.

Anyway, with the reality bomb about to detonate, Donna rushes back and saves the day. This was a moment that I wanted to be a bit bigger, to hit the heights of Rose channeling the timestream back in ‘Parting of the Ways.’ I suppose Donna would be more self deprecating than that, it’s certainly cool to watch her operating that machine and taking them all out, but if this is the climax of such an epic story, at least throw in a burst of mysterious light or an explosion or something to cap it all off. Of course, her joy at saving the universe only looks sadder in retrospect, knowing what’s coming for her.

My favorite part of the episode, one of my favorite moments in the whole series, was the triumphant return of the Earth sequence. Now, we see the “Children of Time” working together to pilot the Tardis as it should be piloted. It’s ironic that though it’s built for six, we’ve rarely seen more than two people aboard. Why can’t all these people stay with the Doctor? Why can’t things always be like this? It seems like everyone has moved on from the Doctor. They may look back with fondness on traveling with him, but it’s a stage, not a destination. Even Rose doesn’t seem to make much of an effort to stay with him this time. Locking the other Doctor in the parallel world is the ostensible reason, but in reality, it seems that at least he has moved on, enough that he decides not to stay with her when he has the chance.

The episode leaves us in a really uncertain place about the efficacy of what the Doctor’s been doing. On the one hand, he has saved the universe, everyone soars back through spacetime hauling the Earth and it’s a glorious moment. I love the score there, I love the intercut scenes of people on Earth celebrating, it’s a really epic moment, and a fitting capper for the two parter.

The farewell in a park sequence feels like a graduation. Everyone moves on to do something else. It looks like Mickey and Martha will be joining up with Torchwood, Sarah Jane will continue doing her own thing over on her spinoff show. Rose and Jackie go back home, and the Doctor is left with only Donna, the companion who’s pledged to travel with him forever. This episode went by so quickly, I was expect there to be another act of some kind, a foe to fight after they return the Earth to its proper place.

But, it turned out to be a more personal tragedy. The moment Donna started repeating herself, I knew things were going to be bad, and from there it was a short fall to the mindwipe. The first time I watched it, I felt like I needed another scene with Donna, where she says good bye to the Doctor. It was too quick the first time. Flipping through the episode again, I came to that scene, and watching it, it’s partially how fast everything happens that makes it so tragic. She doesn’t get a chance to even say that good bye, it’s just a frenzied “No! No,” then her mind is gone. The Doctor must have known this would happen from the moment she got those powers. She saved the universe, but it wound up destroying her.

I don’t know if RTD came up with the mindwipe thing as a way to avoid the pain of killing her. If that was the intent, I think he failed miserably since those last scenes are absolutely excruciating. It’s one of the most sadistic character fates I’ve seen in a series. Really, the only comprable thing for me is Adrianna’s fate in The Sopranos, we know something bad is going to happen, he knows something bad is going to happen to her, but for a moment, she doesn’t believe it. She thinks everything’s going to be okay, better than okay, and then the gunshot comes down, the illusion breaks and reality comes rushing in.

In just a few scenes this season, Bernard Cribbins’ Wilf has become the emotional anchor of the series, the everyman who loves aliens and spaceships. It’s so sad to watch him have to come to terms with the person that Donna has become getting wiped away. They will sing songs of her on alien worlds, but on ours, she will be nothing.

And, that leads to the really difficult scene in which the Doctor sees the old Donna back, totally oblivious to the person she was, the person she could be. Instead, she’ll just go about her life and never realize her potential. I think this ties back to what I consider one of the touchstone scenes for the series, the scene at the restaurant from “Parting of the Ways.” Here, Rose talks to her mother and Mickey and says she won’t go back to her old life, she can’t go back. She’d rather die up in space by the Doctor’s side than go back and live an ordinary life. I think one of the things the Doctor doesn’t understand is that even though his companions may go through bad stuff, they’re all happier to have seen it, and wouldn’t trade it for anything. I’d almost have preferred to see The Doctor just shove Donna out the doors of the Tardis into space than to bring her back home to become the person she used to be.

Of course, maybe things won’t be all bad for Donna. We saw in ‘Forest of the Dead’ that she can be happy in a normal life, and perhaps some of what she’s been through will seep through. Or, at least her mother and Wilf will treat her better, knowing what she can be. Still, the way the scenes are played, and the fact that if she remembers anything, she’ll burn up indicates that the Donna we knew is lost in time.

Her fate here makes clear why we spent so much time on parallel universe Donna of “Turn Left.” It’s clear that even though the person she was is gone, the impact she made on the Earth doesn’t disappear. Comparing the world they’re in now to the world of “Turn Left” makes that clear. She saved the Doctor, and the world many times over. But, that’s not much comfort for the viewer, or for Wilf and the Doctor.

The season, and RTD’s run on the series, ends on a really down note. Wilf says he’ll keep looking up at the stars, he’ll keep her memory alive, but is that any real consolation? It’s not for the Doctor, who ends up alone, forced to reflect on the fact that though he has built an army, he himself is still alone. It’s a downer of an ending, and one that leaves things fairly open for the future.

How much of Davies’ continuity will Moffat run with? Who will be the new companion? There’s a lot of questions, and I think I’ll ponder them in another post that will simultaneously look back and look forward at this run of Doctor Who.

This episode left me with mixed feelings. It really bothered me on a deep level, and I think that’s a testament to the writing, but I can’t help but feel like Donna could have gotten some kind of better ending, and the Doctor needn’t have ended things feeling so bad. Still, it hit me really hard, like no other show does. For me, this is the most emotional show on TV, and this season has been my favorite by far. I can quibble with a lot of things in the episode, but the overall emotional impact overrides any of that. It’s not the series’ best finale, but it’s still a pretty amazing piece of television.

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

The Goddamn Batman #1-9

With the upcoming release of The Dark Knight, you’re probably going to be hearing a lot of interviews about how Chris Nolan wanted to make it “just like the graphic novels,” i.e. dark and grim and gritty. Now, the very notion of creating a Batman film that’s true to the comics is a bit ridiculous. The comics have spanned everything from the legendary Rainbow Batman to the archetypal darkness of The Dark Knight Returns. So, in some ways the Adam West Batman is true to the comics, in some ways Batman Begins is true to the comics. Unlike Marvel characters, and despite Grant Morrison’s best efforts, Batman doesn’t really have any sort of logical character arc, he’s a myth, a collection of elements that can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Writing Batman is like playing jazz, it’s the same few notes, but everyone plays them differently.

So, I don’t think a Batman movie has an obligation to be “true to the comics.” Batman Returns is one of my favorite movies of all time, but it doesn’t resemble any particular Batman comic. It’s the intersection of Tim Burton’s thematic concerns and the Batman archetype. It’s almost absurdly self indulgent, and at times ridiculous, but still brilliant. That same sentiment applies to Frank Miller’s latest take on the Dark Knight, or should I say The Goddamn Batman.

I’ve been following the online reaction to the series, and have been wanting to read it ever since I saw the legendary panel from issue 2. “Are you retarded? Are you dense or something? I’m the Goddamn Batman.” How could it be real? What kind of story could contain such a speech? I wasn’t going in looking for something traditional, I wanted the insanity promised by that panel. I wanted the Goddamn Batman, and Miller delivers. This is a series that is at times completely nonsensical, but hangs together, and really works for me as it goes along. It’s better than Morrison’s take on the character, and far better than Jim Lee’s previous run on the character, Hush.

Part of why I really like the book is the way it continues the stylistic approach of Miller’s brilliant Dark Knight Strikes Again. Rather than being a dark and tormented soul, the Batman of DKSA and this book loves what he’s doing. Nothing pleases him more than beating up a gang of crooks, the height of the series so far for me is issue #7 in which Batman assaults a gang, then proceeds to fuck Black Canary, with the masks on because “it’s better that way.” The book is perhaps the most quotable comic of all time, there’s so many over the top lines. How could the book seriously contain the line “I’ve taken enough grief about calling my goddamn car the goddamn Batmobile. I’m the goddamn Batman and I can call my goddamn car whatever the hell I want to call it.” “Sweet Jesus, the goddamn Batman!” indeed.

There’s some works where all logic and real world coherence is left behind in favor of an immersion in a creator’s obsessions. This is Frank Miller with the filter off, you could easily imagine him saying “I’ve taken enough grief about calling him the goddamn Batman. I’m the goddamn Frank Miller and I can write my goddamn Batman however the hell I please.” I guess people were expecting something more coherent, a dark and serious look at the character, along the lines of Year One. But, that era of comics is over. Frank Miller knows it, but the world’s a bit behind. The thing I love about this book is the way it’s still dark and gritty, but within that milieu is full of total insanity. Miller goes beyond parodying himself right from page 2, with those totally gratuitous shots of Vicki Vale in lingerie and heels. There’s no reason for it except he wants it to be there, so it is. I love the absurdity of that panel with a shirtless Alfred holding Vicki in the train, yes it’s ridiculous, but this is a comic about a man who dresses up as a bat. Batman’s insane, this world is insane and everything’s played totally over the top.

Reality is boring, and even if you don’t think so, don’t you get enough of it in the life you’re living here? Isn’t it nice to take a trip to the intersection of the DC Universe and Frank Miller’s brain, to spend a little bit of time in a world where Wonder Woman calls a man a sperm bank and Batman tells Robin to eat rats, all the while laughing maniacally. He loves being the goddamn Batman, and I love watching him be the goddamn Batman. This is the most exciting Batman comic I’ve read since DKSA, if Batman is the devil in the knight, fighting evil, shouldn’t there be an element of danger about the character. There’s a danger and exhilaration in what he’s doing, and you share that feeling as you read the book.

In this book, Batman is chaos, while the JLA is order. In their confrontations, we see the way that Batman can overwhelm people with power much greater than his because he is always one step ahead of them. Batman is fighting chaos with his own kind of chaos. His methods are infectious and empower others. That’s why I really like the time spent on Black Canary in issue 3. We see her listening to all these ridiculous taunts, and rather than just accept how things are, she decides to fight back, because that’s what the goddamn Batman would do. It’s the same for Batgirl, who hops out into the night rather than stay at home, because she wants to be like Batman. In Miller’s world, Batman is emblematic of the citizen’s right to take the streets back. That was the revolutionary message of DKSA and we see it here again. I’m guessing down the line we’ll see a confrontation between Batman and his gang, and the JLA.

It certainly seems like Miller and Lee will be on the book for a while. The Joker plot is just getting started, and I’m eager to see how he integrates Selina into this world. I felt like she would have fit in the role he had Black Canary play, but I guess he’s got something else for her to do down the line.

Much as I enjoy the insanity, throughout the book, it’s clear that Batman is putting on a persona. Robin constantly makes note of how fake his voice sounds, like a Clint Eastwood imitation. He plays at being this badass, but underneath it all, he’s just a scarred little boy. The last scene of issue #9 is the first moment of real emotion, when the momentum of everything that’s happened slows, and we see Dick mourn his parents for the first time. There, Batman sees that his approach might not have been the best. He’s turning Dick into something worse than himself. I like the way he can segue from this hilarious segment involving Batman and Robin taunting Hal with the yellow house into something pretty harrowing when Batman thinks Dick might have killed Hal. For the first time since issue #1, we see Batman without the mask. He may love being the Goddamn Batman, but he doesn’t want to see this kid become a murderer on his watch.

So, I’m not sure where the series will go in the future. I hope the over the top craziness continues, but I wouldn’t mind seeing some real emotion mixed in. What does Batman’s behavior do to the city? When will the wrong people get hurt, and how will Robin help to heal Batman’s deep wounds?

I also want to throw some respect to Jim Lee’s artwork. He’s one of those people who was so popular, I think it’s easy to say he’s overrated or take him for granted. This is my favorite Jim Lee art to date, he does a great job of conveying the characters’ emotions and can handle even the craziest things Miller can come up with. He captures the spirit of Miller’s own pencils, but gets his own style in there too.

For me, this is pretty much the perfect Batman book. It takes the spirit of Dark Knight Strikes Again and applies it to the present day of Batman continuity. Miller indulges all his whims, and that’s what makes the book work. You’ve got to take it on its own terms, get in tune with its over the top tone and just roll with it. I mean, are you retarded or something, this is the goddamn Batman.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures

Over the past few weeks, I watched the entirety of Torchwood and all but the last two parter of The Sarah Jane Adventures. I don’t think either show is as strong as its parent show, but they each represent interesting extrapolations of the original premise. Unexpectedly, I wound up liking Sarah Jane a lot more, I think it’s truer to what makes Doctor Who great, and is generally better written than the hit and miss Torchwood. I don’t know that Sarah Jane could ever be as good a show as Torchwood could potentially be, but comparing the first season of each show, Sarah Jane was more consistently engaging and narratively coherent than Torchwood.

The biggest issue I had with Torchwood is that they decided to build a spinoff around one of Who’s most charismatic and exciting characters, then proceeded to take away everything that made the character work. It makes absolutely no sense to me why they make a big deal of Jack’s mysterious past when the viewer already knows what happened to him. Now, I suppose the viewer who’d only seen Who season one wouldn’t know exactly how Jack wound up at Torchwood in our present, but you’d still know all the basics of his story. It’s weird that they’d build up this whole mystery with Jack, and then resolve it over on Doctor Who.

This is the fundamental flaw of the series so far, and it makes the character who should be the exciting center of the series doesn’t contribute much. The other characters are all interesting in some ways, but are a bit too similar. Everyone is a morally ambiguous workaholic prone to making bad personal decisions when it comes time for them to take center stage in the plot.

I think this characterization works for Owen and Gwen. Owen is the most far gone, and by starting a relationship with him, Gwen is literally throwing away her personal life for Torchwood. The best episode of the season was the heartbreaking time displacement story which featured three excellent storylines. That was a wonderful example of a story only sci-fi can do that comments on something powerful and human. The second half of the show was much more consistent than the early episodes, but I was pretty let down by the finale, which featured some really awful CGI work. Compared to the three brilliant Doctor Who finales, it was a real disappointment.

The show really feels like the Angel to Doctor Who’s Buffy. After three seasons, Who was riding high, and it’s hard to go back to a shakier first season feel. And, like the first season of Angel, Torchwood has a lot of identity issues, switching between a variety of different storytelling modes. It even features its own alien/demon Fight Club knockoff episode. I’m hoping that the show will come into its own in the next season, like Angel did. For now, I like the show, but it frequently frustrated me.

Going into The Sarah Jane Adventures, I wasn’t really expecting much. I tended not to like the goofier episodes of Who from the early years, so a series targeted exclusively to kids didn’t seem like it’d be my thing. But, Sarah Jane, right from the beginning, was well written and smart. Yes, the stories were on the goofier side at times, but it’s always fun and feels a lot more like Doctor Who than Torchwood. Much of what makes Doctor Who special is the simple joy at the unknown, for Torchwood what’s out there in the night is a menace, for Who and Sarah Jane it’s probably something amazing. I like the latter worldview a lot more, and I think it makes for a better show, that struggle to still believe in the wonder of the universe in the face of enemies from other worlds.

The first few two parters are pretty good, not anything too special. Things pick up with “Whatever Happened to Sarah Jane,” a trip to an alternate universe where Sarah Jane died and Maria’s the only one who remembers. I always like these everything is wrong kind of stories, and the trips to the past and limbo are evocative. That demon who saves Andrea’s life is a pretty menacing villain, and I didn’t even mind the bizarre dwarf guy who runs around screwing up things in time.

The first part of the season finale continues that really dark, focused approach of “Whatever Happened,” as everything we know is one again wrong and Luke actually has a family. In some pretty intense scenes, Luke is torn away from Sarah Jane and taken by ‘his’ family. The second half is a bit of a let down as this challenging moral conundrum turns out to be yet another Slitheen plot. But, even this straightforward action climax is much better than the weak confrontation with the giant CGI beast in Torchwood.

One of the things I frequently find frustrating about spinoffs is this perverse refusal to acknowledge the parent show. Torchwood occasionally featured Who continuity, but I found it hard to place that show in the same universe as Who. Sarah Jane wholeheartedly embraces its legacy, and the moments where Sarah Jane talks about the Doctor are some of the series’ best, reinforcing the idea that she has kind of become the Doctor, leading her own band of Earth defenders. And, the series’ core philosophy is much closer to Who’s than Torchwood’s gloomy outlook.

But, even though I enjoyed the first season of Sarah Jane more, I do think Torchwood has a lot more potential. If they can stop misusing their main character and make Jack more like he was on Who, the show could pick up. We’ll see what happens in season two. And, either way, I’m really glad I watched both shows in light of the events of ‘The Stolen Earth.’

Final Crisis #2

It’s kind of difficult to review Final Crisis as it goes because these early issues are fractured and all over the place. That’s not really a complaint, it’s a universe spanning crossover, so you can’t expect to spend a lot of time in one place. What does definitively work in both this issue and its predecessor is the sense of dread. The whole universe seems to be spinning out of control, right into the arms of Apokolips. When Batman’s imprisoned and being tortured, you know it’s going down.

It seems like the series is going to be at least partially about knocking out all the big heroes, at which point a new team will come in and lead the resistance. The groundwork for this is laid in the brilliant opening sequence, the issue’s high point. Super Young Team reminds me of the mutant subculture we saw back in Morrison’s X-Men run. In a world where superheroes are real, they’re going to be cultural icons, and inspire fashion trends. That’s a great example of Morrison exploring not what superheroes would be like in our world, but what ‘normal’ people would be like in a superhero world. I’d definitely be up for a Super Young Team ongoing after this.

But, things really pick up with the entrance of Sonny Sumo, a Fourth World character. It’s nice to read this and actually know who he is. He appears to have taken his badassness up a few notches between his Forever People team up and now. The defeat of MegaYakuza is great, and everything gets kicked up again with the entrance of Shilo Norman, Mister Miracle. He’s seen everything bad that will happen during his time in the Black Hole in Seven Soldiers, and is now back to form a new team and save the world.

The notion of a team of underachieving heroes coming together to battle a huge foe is a large part of what Seven Soldiers was about. It’s a testament to Morrison’s writing that he’s made me more excited to see Shilo Norman than any other character in the issue. That’s how good Seven Soldiers was, because those characters weren’t as iconic, it was easier to engage with them as individuals. I think this issue is generally better when it’s b-list characters on screen instead of the big names.

The scenes with Turpin are oppressively nasty, as he deals with some kind of alien presence within himself. I’m not sure whether it’s Darkseid or Orion he’s carrying. I think Orion would make more sense, but Reverend Goode seems to think he’s Darkseid. Either way, the sequences make it clear that this is a world where the moral polarity has reversed and the heroes have to use villains’ tactics to get anything done. That’s an interesting idea, and I’m sure things will only decay further as the series goes on.

Ultimately, the series seems to be about heroes struggling to remain heroes in a world that’s losing all sense of morality. If evil’s won, how can we fight back? The residents of Apokolips are lodging themselves in heroes, seeding themselves through time so they can destroy the heroes at critical moments in the timeline. They’re like evil versions of John a Dreams, taking control of people at moments they know will be critical to the timestream, but instead of fighting for something good, they’re trying to undermine the heroes’ cause. How can you fight evil gods who have power beyond anything we can comprehend? That’s the big question of the series.

Even on the villain side of things, there’s a divide between Lex and Libra. Libra has wholly bought into whatever Darkseid offered him, he is glad to take advantage of his new power and destroy the heroes. Lex is not as certain, he senses that something’s wrong and lays the groundwork for his own resistance. I’m reminded of the parallel universe Luthor in JLA: Earth 2, maybe Luthor will always fight against the natural order of the universe? Lex in All Star Superman loves to be contradictory, so this Luthor might be just as eager to fight for good in a world gone bad and he was to fight for evil in a good world.

As for the big return at the end of the issue, it doesn’t mean much for me. If I hadn’t heard that the old Flash was coming back, I’d have just assumed it was the same guy who already here, since they look exactly the same. But, I do like the idea of a bullet fired backwards in time, it’s one of those inherently mind bending concepts Morrison does so well.

So, I really enjoyed this issue. More than the previous Crises, this feels very character focused. There’s a lot of stories going on, but it’s not just random action, all the pieces seem to be there for a reason, and I’m eager to see how it all comes together near the end. It’s such a big story, I don’t know how it’ll all fit in five more issues. But, I’m sure Morrison will make it work.