Thursday, December 07, 2006

Weekend Update

Inland Empire Released

It came out in New York on Wednesday. If you haven't already read it, I reviewed the film back in October in non-spoiler and spoiler variety. If you have seen the film, I'd love to talk more about it, it's nice to see a Lynch film before the critical consesus about it has emerged, to invent the theories that will one day guide viewers. I'll be going back for a second viewing as soon I return to New York, which should be in a week or so. And, I just have to add that it's cool to be the top Google search result for "Inland Empire explanation."

Upcoming Viewing/Reading

I'm still reading through the second TPB of Ellis' Stormwatch. The series just isn't very good. Once that's done, I'll be reading, and reviewing, Alan Moore's Lost Girls. In terms of TV, I'm caught up on Friday Night Lights, next I'm going to watch season three of Rescue Me. I left my first season of Babylon 5 at home, so I can't start that again until next week, but after that I should go through it fairly quickly, and will be reviewing as I go. I've also got I'm Alan Partridge coming in. I haven't written about many films lately, largely because I haven't seen much worth writing about. But, when something comes along, it'll be on here.

Awards Buzz

The National Board of Review named Letters From Iwo Jima the best film of the year. I haven't seen it, but come on, the war movie was exhausted with Apocalypse Now, and Clint just isn't that good a filmmaker. Of all the best picture contenders, the only one I'm a big fan of is The Departed. But, I've still got to see Babel and I'll probably check out Dreamgirls when it drops.

Buffy Comic

I read this interview with Joss about the upcoming Buffy comic. I'd rather have seen the character movies he mentioned here, but at least the comic will be something. I'm not sure I like the idea that the Buffy seen in Angel's 'The Girl in Question' isn't the real Buffy, I liked the idea that she had left behind her responsibility and was just having fun for once. The Buffy in the comic seems to be an extension of season seven grim leader Buffy, the least interesting she ever was on the series. I hated the idea of the army of slayers then, and I don't think it's a good idea to put Buffy with a bunch of random people rather than her friends, the characters we've followed through the series. I'm going to be open minded, but it was the personal dynamic that interested me more than the big action stuff on the series, that's why season six was the show's best.

Friday Night Lights (1x02-1x07)

After a fantastic pilot, the show keeps up the intensity and visual mystique, even as it falls into some well worn patterns of serial drama. In the pilot review, I talked about the way that recent debut episodes have totally raised the game in terms of visual and narrative progression, creating fully formed narrative universes in a television hour. But, after building this universe, where is there left to go?

In terms of presentation, the show's kept the very dynamic, verite visual style of the first episode. The handheld camera work brings our eyes right to the most important part of the frame, telling the story in glances and body language. I think this kind of camerawork can really help actors because it allows us them to just perform without worrying so much about how to emphasize what they're doing to the camera. A traditionally shot show necessitates a somewhat theatrical performance, with the actor catering to the audience in a set location. This show goes in a more dogme direction, allowing the action to happen and just catching it with the camera. I'm sure there's still a lot of planning and blocking, but you get the feeling of spotaneity, and that's what matters most. It's hard to keep this level of stylization on a weekly basis, but, with the exceptin of Battlestar Galactica, this is the most interesting looking show on television now.

That said, I do miss some of the nonverbal storytelling of the pilot. Now, with more responsibility to advance the plot arcs, the drifting shots of the town and silent focus on the people has largely gone by the wayside. There's always some interesting musical moments in the episode, but the focus on visual storytelling that was present in the pilot just isn't there. I may not be in the majority here, but I'd rather see a slower paced show that emphasizes the visual than one that rushes through stories. I find it annoying that people constantly criticize shows for moving too slow, particularly Heroes and BSG, then rush to say they're not as good as they used to be. It's not a race, events are more meaningful if they build, and we get to know the characters.

Buffy season six and Six Feet Under season three, arguably the two greatest seasons of television ever, both have a slow build structure, totally immersing us in the characters' troubles and then blowing everything up at the end. 'I'm Sorry, I'm Lost' isn't the best episode of the series solely because of what happens, it works so well because we've been immersed in what's Nate feeling, and are able to completely understand what he's going through in that moment. Sure, there may be a few slow episodes earlier in the season, but if you're going to approach a TV show as one big story, there's got to be slower parts. So, rather than filling the slow parts with circular narrative stopgaps, just focus on the visuals and the world and just relax in the characters' presence. Certainly by the end of Buffy, it wasn't the narrative moments that made the show work, it was hanging out with characters I'd come to love. If there was a follow up Buffy project, I wouldn't want a big bad, I'd rather see a Before Sunset type thing, with the characters just being together and reflecting on their lives.

But, that's a digression. This show isn't to that point yet, though the characters are becoming more interesting and developed. Saracen is probably my favorite, a goofy guy who probably just played football to make his dad happy is now thrust into the ultimate position of power in the town. His basic conflict is his reluctance to fully move into the football players' world. These are the people he's mocked all his life, and most notably in 'El Accidente,' we see that he knows this glory is fleeting. He's not going to go pro, and it's tough for him to get caught up in things when he knows that it will all end in a couple of years.

That's the spectre hanging over every character on the show, the knowledge that this is probably the high point of their lives. As we see with the former state champion quarterback, it's a lot tougher on the college level, they lose the chance for uncomplicated glory they have in Dillon. And, after those couple of years on top, the fall will be harsh. In the scenes with the team, there's the inevitable knowledge that the people there next year will be a very different crew, the coaches stay, but the kids move on, and that's the way of things in high school, football and otherwise. I think it must be weird being a teacher, staying in the same place, while those you teach move on to different things. When you're in class, you're unaware of the fact that the teacher has done this many times before, and with a few exceptions, you're probably not that special a class. Go back in ten years and who's going to remember you? Certainly not the students, everything changes, and soon no one who remembers you even works at the school.

Anyway, back to Saracen, he's the axis through which we can see both inside and outside the football machine. His friend, Landry, is simultaneously reveling in his connections to the football team and worried that Saracen will fully assimilate into their world and leave him behind. So far, that hasn't happened, but it's not easy for Saracen to navigate this world. On top of that, there's the trouble with his grandmother, the kind of realistic touch you usually don't see in TV. He's got so much going on, it's excusable when he doesn't give his all on the field.

Along with this heavier stuff, there is some humor. Saracen's almost painful awkwardness is very true to life. I love the scene where Coach Taylor tells him to take some girl in the backseat, and then realizes he was talking about his daughter. Because the show is so realistic otherwise, they can get away with what might be broad humor on another show. In comedy, I find it's always funnier to do a realistic universe. Cheech and Chong smoking pot, not particularly funny. Lester Burnham, straight laced businessman, smoking up is hilarious becuase it violates the code of the world he lives in, and does so in a realistic manner. The scene where Saracen asks Julie out works really well because he's so awkward and unconfident, saying "I'm just throwing it out there." You're simultaneously laughing at his lack of confidence and realizing that you'd be doing the same thing, or at least I would be.

A more troubling plotline is the relationship between Lyla and Tim. It plays fairly well, but comes off a bit too soapish. The Saracen stuff seems to take place in the real world, but they're from TV reality. It's very difficult to do a story like this without desending into melodrama. For me, the most realistic kind of writing is when characters don't do or say what they want. So, having Lyla say "I'm sleeping with my paralyzed boyfriend's best friend" may be designed to hit the nail on the head, but it winds up feeling a bit melodramatic. That said, the section where they go out on the boat is wonderful, Jason's lack of knowledge coupled with our knowledge makes his happiness painful, and just when we're thinking that maybe it can work, he finds out what's going on.

In general, the Jason storyline has been well handled. The best moment was definitely when he saw the wheelchair basketball, and for the first time was able to recover some of his hope. I like the way he makes no progress before that, but after is working on improving. Now, you could argue he's recovering too fast, but I think it makes sense. This is a guy who was in peak physical shape, if anyone can come back quick, he can. All it took was the will. The other great thing about this is the mix of pain and happiness he feels when with the team. The scene when he rolls out onto the field really conveys this mixed emotion, as does the locker room scene after that.

Elsewhere, Kyle Chandler as Coach Taylor continues to own the screen. They've done a good job of allowing him to totally buy into what they're doing, but still keep a bit of distance. He's torn between Buddy and his wife, between the idea of winning as the number one priority and football as something help the kids grow up into better people. This is the core tension of the show, and it was hit on a bit obviously in 'El Acidente.' I think the show is good enough that they don't need to spell things out in the way that episode did. Like in Battlestar Galactica, any time an episode too obviously tackles a theme, it comes off false. It's better to let things play out as subtext, the show is good enough that we get what they're doing.

So, in general I'm thrilled with the direction of the show. The few hiccups along the way don't detract from the way the series has created a very unique world that's unlike anything I've seen before on TV. I'm not a big football fan and I usually hate stuff about the middle of the country, but the show completely won me over. This is easily the best new show of the season, and one of the best on TV right now.

Monday, December 04, 2006

Best Album of the Year

2008: Cut Copy- In Ghost Colours
2007: Arcade Fire - Neon Bible
2006: Belle and Sebastian - The Life Pursuit
2005: The Raveonettes - Pretty in Black
2004: The Polyphonic Spree - Together We're Heavy
2003: Belle and Sebastian - Dear Catastrophe Waitress
2002: Doves - The Last Broadast
2001: Daft Punk - Discovery
2000: Phoenix - United
1999: Mr. Bungle - California
1998: Air - Moon Safari
1997: Radiohead - OK Computer
1996: Belle and Sebastian - If You're Feeling Sinister
1995: Radiohead - The Bends
1994: Tori Amos - Under the Pink
1993: U2 - Zooropa
1992: Tori Amos - Little Earthquakes
1991: U2 - Achtung Baby
1990: Depeche Mode - Violator
1989: Nine Inch Nails - Pretty Hate Machine
1988: Morrissey - Viva Hate
1987: U2 - The Joshua Tree
1986: The Smiths - The Queen is Dead
1985: The Smiths - Meat is Murder
1984: Prince - Purple Rain
1983: Pink Floyd - The Final Cut
1982: Michael Jackson - Thriller
1981: U2 - October
1980: David Bowie - Scary Monsters and Super Creeps
1979: Pink Floyd - The Wall
1978: Patti Smith - Easter
1977: Pink Floyd - Animals
1976: Electric Light Orchestra - A New World Record
1975: Bruce Springsteen - Born to Run
1974: David Bowie - Diamond Dogs
1973: Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon
1972: David Bowie - The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust
1971: Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin IV
1970: The Beatles - Let It Be
1969: The Beatles - Abbey Road
1968: The Beatles - The Beatles
1967: The Beatles - Magical Mystery Tour
1966: The Beatles - Revolver
1965: The Beatles - Rubber Soul

Sunday, December 03, 2006

Friday Night Lights - Pilot (1x01)

I'd heard good things about this show back when it debuted, but I was busy watching a whole bunch of other shows. Now that most stuff is going on post sweeps hiatus I figured it was time to take a look, and after one episode, I'm totally wowed. I've mentioned before that in recent years, the quality of pilots has improved a lot, a lot of shows are coming out of the gate fully formed, which just wasn't true ten years ago. In some cases, such as Studio 60 or Lost, the pilot is the series highpoint, and I'm hoping that's not the case in Friday Night Lights, because this pilot is one of the best starts to a series I've seen.

Now, I haven't seen the film the show was based on, so maybe this seems so well formed because it ha the movie to draw from. But, as a new viewer, I was really impressed by the show's use of art cinema style and documentary conventions to create a reality. The show this is closest to is Battlestar Galactica, which has a similar handheld style, making frequent use of zooms and cuts to give the feeling that this is really happening and we're trying to keep up and follow the action. I love this style of filmmaking, to some extent it's become a cliche denoter of realism, but it's nowhere near as cliche as the classical Hollywood conventions that govern most shows. People still have this mindset that shot/reverse shot, wide/close dynamics are the way film should be, and anything else is gimmicky. That simply isn't true, the style used here works really well with the material and does make it feel real.

The standout scenes in terms of this are the diner scene and the party scene. There, we cut between a variety of narrative strands, hearing snippets of conversation then moving forward to something else. In this pilot, rather than trying to specifically develop the characters, the goal seems to be to give you a portrait of the town. So, we meet a variety of people who demonstrate the values of this town. It is an economically depressed area that has largely been left behind, and the one uniting force in the town is the football team. It transcends high school to define existence for all these people. That's certainly weird to see, and the show does a good job of getting you into this world without an outside point of view. To some extent, the news crew is used to give some quick exposition, but generally we're allowed to just view the world on its own terms. I like the fact that no one is there to question their values, instead that act of questioning is left up to the viewer.

I've talked a lot about how TV has surpassed film in many ways. This show is shot better than the vast majority of movies out there. It has the dynamic energy of indie films like My Summer of Love, where the emphasis is largely on creating visual moments rather than conveying all the details of a story. I love the music, and the silent moments where the camera drifts down the street. The radio show is another great conceit, an omnipresent voice pressuring the coach. One of the coolest sequences was the silent practice with the peewee team, which segued into the locker room prayer. I was surprised to see them pray, and I think that's something deliberately designed to confront blue state viewers with the differences of this world.

This all leads up to the game itself. The pacing here is pretty quick and the one thing that struck me as off was just showing the touchdowns. But, once Street gets hit, everything slows down and we get a much better sense of the reality of this moment. I think it's a great testament to the show that for all its art cinema flourishes, it still provides the basic narrative tension that engrosses you in the action. The problem with doing this sort of subtle character development is that it sometimes means distancing the audience. At the same time, using tired editing techniques just to build tension is too transparent. Here, the presentation is so strong, I was on some level aware I was being manipulated, but I just didn't care. When Saracen is given the ball, I really wanted him to succeed. I love the juxtaposition of Street being cut out of his football stuff, really nasty stuff, with the triumph on the field. There's this very quick shift of emotions, and when that final pass is up in the air, you can tell that in that moment, everyone in the stands has forgotten about Street, they just want someone to catch the ball.

But, that moment of triumph is quickly undercut, first with another prayer, and then with the tense ending at the hospital. And that's the sign of a good series, the ability to make you care so much about what happens in the moment, and also realize that, in the long run, it's rather insignificant.

I thought this pilot was fantastic. It created an entire world, with a very distinct mood and feel in only one episode. The characters weren't developed in the traditional TV way, but I already have a sense of them, and I'm curious to see how things develop. There's a lot of potential here, and I'll definitely catch up on all that's aired in the next couple of weeks.

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Weekend Update

History of Melody Nelson Videos

Yesterday I watched the TV special that Serge Gainsbourg did for his 'History of Melody Nelson' album. It's available in seven parts on Youtube. As I've already written about, I love the album and it was cool to see it visualized. There's not much of a narrative to the songs, but you get the basic idea of what happens through Serge's interactions with Jane Birkin as Melody. The visuals are very abstract, most of the songs feature our heroes superimposed over weird spinning patterns. My favorite video is the first, showing Serge driving along, passing through a bunch of lights and colors. The video for 'L'Hotel Particulier' is nice as well, following Serge and Jane through a variety of classic paintings. The only problematic one is the finale, 'Cargo Culte,' which focuses on African tribal imagery for some reason. But, it returns to Jane by the end and resolves nicely. I thought this was a great series of videos and I'd love to see a higher quality version on DVD. The album is still one of the all time greats, and if you haven't heard it, check out this video below.



Inland Empire Trailer

In other video news, the trailer for David Lynch's Inland Empire is up online. I saw the film and reviewed it back in October, but I'm looking forward to a second viewing when I return home in a couple of weeks. The trailer isn't exactly representative, I don't think anything could be, but it captures a lot of the film's mood. Also, I believe the vocals on that song are by Lynch himself, but I'm not positive on that one. This is a film where it's pretty safe to watch the trailer, there's so much in there, it's tough to spoil.



The Fountain Dries Up

It's been tough to see last weekend's box office report, and see The Fountain get so few viewers. I've followed this film for six years, and even though the film itself was great, I'd have liked to see it make more of a cultural impact than it did. Now, I'm sure this will be one that people will rediscover on DVD, but if you want to see more films like this get made, go see them in the theaters. If everyone who likes Eternal Sunshine now went to see it in the theater, it'd probably be a lot easier to get adventurous films like that made. But, I feel like people go to the movies that are most hyped, the ones that you need to see to be part of the cultural dialogue. And, outside of the internet, The Fountain is not a part of that dialogue.

Weeds Season Two

I finally finished watching the second season of Weeds earlier today. The last run of episodes was great, with an expertly constructed cliffhanger to top it off. I prefer the show when it's in dramatic mode rather than broad comedy mode, and this final arc, in which Peter turns on Nancy was the best thing the show's ever done. Plus, Nancy and Conrad are fantastic together, there's a chemistry there that makes all their scenes together great. Zooey Deschanel fits right in with the cast, hopefully she'll be back next season, and I like how they use her to help develop Andy a bit. The show grew a lot with the second season and I'll definitely be back to see how things are resolved next year.

More on the Preacher show

There's an interesting interview with Mark Steven Johnson here, in which he talks about his plans for the Preacher show. I like the idea of one episode an issue, the Grandma storyline will certainly provide a nice first season finale. I'll be curious to see how the show winds up, this isn't a series where the comics connection is instantly apparent, so it could wind up attracting a general, rather than fanboy audience. That's not to say that superhero films don't attract a general audience, it's just that they're usually ghettoized, where a show like Carnivale isn't. More generally, I'm curious about how people will adapt to watching a show where they already know what will happen. If the general viewer wants spoilers, they'll be readily available, and I'll be curious to see how many people get hooked on the series and wind up reading the comic because they need to know what will happen next. And, how will this show affect Alan Ball's upcoming vampire series, True Blood?

Veronica Mars: Season Three, Part One

Now that the first mystery of the season is over, it seems like as good a time as any to check in on Veronica Mars. Most shows have a lot of trouble transitioning from high school to college, and I think Veronica has done a smoother job it than Buffy or Gilmore Girls. However, the primary reason for this is that they've made very few changes to the show from the high school years. Everyone that Veronica knows has gone to Hearst, even Weevil is a janitor there. So, other than calling the cafeteria a dining hall, and getting some new antagonists, this is the exact same show it was the previous two years. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, clearly it was a formula that worked, but at the same time, it feels like the show hasn't grown.

Part of the reason that's difficult is because of Veronica herself. With Buffy, there was real difference between college and high school. Xander never got a job at the college, instead he was left behind, and that was a great choice. When you go to college, everyone you know doesn't follow you, and there are people like Xander, who get left behind. Similarly, Buffy runs into issues with her parental figure, Giles. She has trouble incorporating him into her new worldview, she's outgrowing him, and we don't get that same tension with Veronica and Keith. I think it would have been smarter to not have her live at home, that way there'd be more tension in the relationship, with Veronica working on cases without his knowledge or approval.

The major reason they can't do this is because none of the other characters are complex or developed enough to sustain their own storylines. Xander could easily handle an A storyline, but I don't think the same is true of Wallace. He's given a couple of decent storylines, but generally speaking, he remains the same person he was back in high school, Veronica's sidekick. Ironically, despite being added to the opening credits, Mac has even less screentime. This is a huge mistake, we should be seeing more of how her experience with Beaver affected her, but that's only really touched on in the first episode.

That's symptomatic of a larger problem, which is the show's reluctance to use its history to its advantage. There are references to past episodes, but generally speaking, there is not strong character development over time. Some awful stuff happened at the end of last season, and they should have engaged with that more. Now, a major reason for the reluctance to do so was likely the desire to make it easy for new viewers to watch the show. There's validity to that, but I think it's possible to incorporate arcs that build off of old stuff without requiring the audience to know the exact details of what happened. If you just started watching the show this season, you'd have no concept of Mac as a character, she'd just be Veronica's friend who appears occasionally.

There are similar problems with the new characters. For one, they don't get much screentime, so you don't really know them. I just had to look on IMDB to find Parker's name, which shows how much she's impacted the show. The problem with her is that they set up a specific kind of personality in the first episode, then having her get raped negates all that personality. So, who is she now? That is never really clarified. Piz is the archetypal self deprecating nice guy who cropped up often on Buffy, always as a contrast to her real desire for the bad boy figure. Now, I think Logan is the most interesting character on the show, but with Veronica's morality, there's no real reason that she should be interested in him.

Veronica has a very strict manichean worldview. With her dad's affair, she refuses to consider that it might make him happy. Admittedly, she has seen a lot of these kind of affairs that go wrong, but I feel like she's acting a bit hypocritical when she is dating someone who's been involved in all sorts of bad stuff. With Buffy, it made sense for her to be attracted to Spike because having her drawn to the darkness was a part of her character. We never get that sense with Veronica, when she crosses the line, it's in being utterly cold, there is none of the emotional heat that Buffy had. Veronica's decision to break up with him does make sense, but I'm sure they'll inevitably be drawn back together.

The other major issue I had with this part of the season is with the overall mystery. Now, having your best friend murdered isn't very nice, but I think we're more used to dealing with a whodunit, and it's not as fun to engage in a whorapedher. And, the resolution wasn't particularly exciting. A couple of peripheral characters did it because they could. The resolution of the first mystery was great, and the second season's was solid as well, but this one felt like they just picked a couple of people and had them do it. Plus, I think it's troubling that Veronica has been dosed with GHB so many times. I feel like it's crossing the line from something interesting to a kind of perverse punishment for the character. They've made her so steely that it takes literally being drugged to give her any kind of weakness.

But, there is one element of the show that always works and that's Dick. Every scene he has with Veronica is funny, and a nice counterpoint to her usual seriousness. Logan's also still pretty interesting, though a bit neutered this season. I'm still enjoying the episodes, but the show's not growing, and that's a problem. What did this season's nine episode long rape arc do that wasn't already done in the standalone episode that introduced it last season? Not much. The show needs to commit to giving more development and better arcs to its supporting cast, and challenge Veronica with more than just rape drugs.

Battlestar Galactica - 'Unfinished Business' (3x09)

The premise here wasn't too promising, and even after the episode was over, the sudden introduction of boxing into the universe felt a bit weird, but if you roll with that, it's actually a great hour, and a nice return to form after a couple of off weeks.

The thing that stands out most here is the structure of the show. Very few other shows on television attempt the complex structural and storytelling techniques used on Galactica. In mid season two, they did a bunch of start at the end, track back episodes, and those were generally unsuccessful. What we have here are two seperate storylines that progress forward independently, and comment on each other as they progress. The show does a lot of impressionistic openings, presenting a bunch of images whose meaning only becomes gradually clear. They usually save this for big episodes, like the season one finale or this year's premiere, but it works well here too.

The most interesting thing about this episode was definitely the look back on life at New Caprica. When I heard they would be doing a flashback episode filling in the 18 month gap, I wasn't too excited because I got the sense that they skipped over all the interesting stuff, and looking back would ony mean dwelling on some inconsequential stuff. That is true to some extent, but at this point, just seeing the happiness and optimism they have about New Caprica is powerful. They all seem so happy and the blue skies are such a contrast to the oppressive gray we see later in the Cylon era. I think Baltar got a bad rap throughout the season, but here, it looks like his decision has really worked out. I particularly like Adama and Roslin, their drug fueled ruminations on the future of the planet are great.

The problem with doing any flashback episode is that it has to fit into what we've already seen in the series. In the last episode, the major issue was, if this is so important to Adama, why have we never heard about it before? To some extent, the story with the Chief runs into that issue. At first, it felt totally arbitrary that he would choose to fight the chief, but eventually it becomes clear that he's not fighting the chief, he's fighting the complacency that allowed the cylons to so thoroughly rout New Caprica. Much like on the original Caprica, they got lazy, let their guard down and were overwhelmed by the cylon force. Adama is basically saying that he won't allow that to happen again. He lets himself be hurt as a way of showing to the men that it's important to always be ready for a fight.

Having Roslin all of a sudden be into boxing was a bit ridiculous, but the other scenes between the two of them were great. That's true of a lot of the episode, having the characters suddenly invested in boxing is just weird, but the way it's intercut with the New Caprica stuff makes it work. The boxing become a purely allegorical piece of storytelling, a means to work out what the story is really about, the lingering emotional tensions between the crew.

I've never been particularly invested in the Kara/Lee relationship, but this episode does a good job of telescoping their whole history into a few moments. I like the way moments are continually replayed, and over the course of the episode, we're given context for what we're seeing. The shots on New Caprica are so good looking, it's a joy just to be back there. I really wish they had the budget to spend more time there.

The ending is the most effective part of the episode, particularly the brutality of the fight. Kara seems devoted solely to hurting Lee, and that means using kicks, elbows, anything. I like how the show never even makes issue of the fact that Lee is fighting a woman, Kara is his equal, or superior, in all respects, and the end of the episode makes the point that they're so even, neither can ever definitively top the other. It's that equality that makes them so attractive to each other, no one else in on their level, and if one of them definitively won, it would let them both move on. But, after the stalemate, they each see the other as the archetypal male or female against whom all others will be judged.

So, I really enjoyed this episode. The boxing initially felt a bit goofy, but it worked really well in context, and the narrative structure here was fantastic. The music was also critical to making the episode work, building mood and momentum through the repeating string motifs. It's a testament to the episode that I wasn't even missing Baltar and the cylons, the Galactica stuff was that solid.

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Babylon 5: 1x01-1x03

After watching the pilot, I wasn't thrilled with Babylon 5. But, as promised, things improve as it goes into the series. The first episode is basically a revised pilot, introducing us to the new characters and re-establishing the status quo on the station. What stands out immediately is the loss of most of the really bad actors. Ivanova has a lot more personality than Takashima, it's always good to have a contentious supporting cast rather than people who totally believe in the mission. With Ivanova, I see a lot of potential for future development, and we even get some more layers here, with the death of her father and her story about her mother. Plus, it's nice to see Bill's mom from Freaks and Geeks getting some work.

There's a lot more tension here. In 'The Gathering,' there's very little actual conflict, but the attack on the colony lends urgency to what's going on. Plus, it allows for some humanization (or Centauriazation) of Londo. After three episodes, I'm still not sure about Londo. He's a very entertaining character, but sometimes feels a bit too broad. He was better in the third episode, gradually becoming more than just funny hair and an accent. It doesn't help that his assistant seems to be right off of a bad sitcom. It's hard to take a character seriously when he's dealing with such goofy help. On Buffy, there were a lot of complaints about the goofiness of Andrew, but I always found him funny in a smart way. This assistant guy just isn't funny, and that makes him only annoying. I think the guy could bring a bit more realism to the acting.

The Captain is also still a question mark. I really didn't like him in the pilot, and I don't know if it's that he's improved or that I've gotten used to him, but he's definitely less offensive. That said, I still don't buy him as the center of the show, and it feels odd that he's always involved in the action. We never see Bill Adama going out in the Viper, and similarly, I don't know if the head of this whole station should be out on fighter missions. Admittedly, it's needed for the plot, but I feel like it might have been better to make a seperate pilot hotshot character and captain character. Of course, that could just be the Battlestar influence talking.

The effects were a real problem in the pilot, but I'm getting used to them a bit more. The rendering is pretty bad, but I think they are successful in terms of free camera movement. You can do more with these CG ships than with models, and the fights are pretty well done. However, the basic issue remains that they're clearly fake, and the story has to be better to compensate for that. In any sci-fi show, you must willingly cross into the universe. Sometimes when I catch a snippet of Buffy or Angel out of context, it looks absolutely ridiculous. But when you're watching the show, it feels perfectly natural. I'm still not quite at home in the Babylon 5 world.

A simpler trouble arises in the second episode, a standalone that feels a lot like a bad X-Files episode. The Soulhunter is a decent idea, but so much time is spent on drawn out dialogue scenes, the episode never really comes together. It's a visual medium, and I understand the budgetary limitations, but a snappier pace is needed to keep things interesting. We do get some interesting teases about the future, and possible developments with the Minbari, but that's not enough to make the episode work.

I'm hoping that there's not a long period where every episode is a standalone. I get the need to set up the universe, but I feel like there are more exciting stories that could have worked to set up the Minbari world. For example, the next episode does a good job of setting up Centauri culture and developing both G'Kar and Londo. It wasn't a particularly unique plot, but it was the most emotionally involved I've been in an episode so far.

I'm curious to see if relationships become central to the series as it goes on. So far, the show seems pretty cold, and I don't see the potential for a relationship with the fire of a Buffy/Spike, or more accurately, there's no indication that kind of storytelling is a priority for JMS. The Captain has his girlfriend, but other than that, everyone just seems to be there.

So, I'm not fully sold on the series. The standalone structure isn't what I usually like, and there's too much of a sitcom style, set up conflict, resolve it all by the end, have a nice happy ending structure, but I was more entertained by each episode here than I was by the pilot. I'm really curious to see how it develops and how all of the hints dropped here eventually play out over the course of the series.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Comics to Film/TV: The Latest

Back when I first started reading comics, I read with baited breath every rumor about the possibility of a Watchmen or Preacher movie, even hoping that the awful sounding Sandman movie would get off the ground. I'm not sure why, I guess part of it was to bring these stories to more people, and also just curiosity about how to do it. Then, I saw the From Hell movie, absolutely awful, the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, even worse, and V For Vendetta, a good movie, but nowhere near the book.

By this point, I'll admit I'm always curious to hear about progress on a project, but I don't particularly want most comics I really like to get made into a movie. It's particularly odd that so many Alan Moore books are getting adapted. What makes Moore so unique is the way that he makes use of all that comics have to offer as a storytelling form. Watchmen has a great story, but even if you tell the whole story, the film still won't have a lot of the impact of the book. Watchmen is often called comics' Citizen Kane, and just like Kane, the form is critical to the success of the work. Nobody would want to read Citizen Kane as a comic, and that's the equivalent of what a Watchmen movie would be.

If this Zach Synder Watchmen movie does happen, I'm sure I'll watch it, but if it doesn't happen, I won't particularly care. I think the great myth of these films is that it gets people to read the books. In some cases, it does, but I think it puts things the wrong way around. People read V For Vendetta the book and compare it to the film, it ceases to be an original work unto itself.

But, a development I am interested to see is the just announced HBO Preacher series. I'm always annoyed when longform comic series are turned into movies, the two forms don't match. Preacher fits perfectly with a TV show aesthetic, and HBO is one of the few places that will have no problem dealing with the violent and sexual content. Plus, the whole joy of the series was the evolving relationship and that'll be easier to work with in this form. I guess I'm more attached to Preacher as a story than as a complete work of art, so I think it could do better in translation. If the casting's right, the show will write itself.

Considering both HBO and Vertigo are in the Time Warner empire, if this show is a success, I wouldn't be surprised to see more Veritgo books turned into TV shows. I think the most obvious candidate is Y: The Last Man, which has a perfectly promotable high concept, if you can't make a good pilot out of it, then you shouldn't be working in television. I think 100 Bullets would also work really well, it's nicely episodic already and would be a new twist on the crime genre.

Of course, for me the big one would be The Invisibles. It's still shocking to me that no Grant Morrison stuff has been adapted for the screen. He's got so many quality projects, you'd think one of them would have stuck. Morrison is still little known outside of comics, despite the fact that he's an equal of Moore. I guess it's because Morrison has less easily accessible one volume works, a lot of his best stuff is longform, and tied up in a lot of continuity. But, perhaps I should be happy that I've been spared adaptations on the level of Moore's work.

If I got the chance, there's two comics I would want to adapt for the screen, and only two. One would be Miracleman. Of all Moore's major works, this one is the least tied into comics form. Totelben's art in the last book is some of the best ever, but that's more due to his pointilistic style than to anything particular in the layouts. The story is also easily accessible, and in today's post Heroes world, would have a very broad appeal. Superhero movies are now so prevalent, I think we're ready for the deconstructionist take, and few works are better at first breaking down, then reimagining the superhero than Miracleman.

I would make books one and two into one movie, ending with the birth of Miracleman's child. Then, do book three as a second movie. The brawl between Miracleman and Kid Miracleman is still unmatched in comics, and it'd be cool to imagine the world described in Olympus. The primary issue I could see there is that the fight would be the height of narrative tension and the worldbuilding might be a bit anticlimactic. So, perhaps it would need to be a trilogy.

The other work I'd be really curious to see a film of is Flex Mentallo. Flex is Morrison's response to the deconstructionist 80s works by Alan Moore, and I think no work does a better job of articulating the essential appeal of superheroes, the wonder and magic inherent within the concept. I love the fractured narrative structure, and it'd be cool to cut between Wallace Sage's suicide attempt and the superhero stuff with Flex. I would shoot Wallace in low end DV, and Flex in 35mm film, then find some kind of median when the two worlds intersect. More than anything, the key would be not trying to increase narrative comprehensibility, but rather use music and editing rhythm to let the viewer just drift through the world.

The two things that film has that comics do not are sound and motion. I enjoyed the Sin City film, but it's ultimately pointless, a film should not use the comic as a storyboard, I'd prefer to see a film use the comic narrative as a jumping off point to create a Wong Kar-Wai style immersive journey through another world. Flex would be perfect for that, with a lot of montage editing and voiceover to link the disparate story strands. I feel like comic book adaptations should use what cinema has to offer, and try to stand as a nice addition to the original work, rather than a replacement.

Ghost World is the best graphic novel adaptation because it captures the soul of the original work and also adds something new. You can read the two side by side and see them each as pieces of a larger universe. I hope that Preacher feels the same way, a growth upon the original and not just a second generation degraded copy.

Sunday, November 26, 2006

The New World: Redefining Cinematic Language

To celebrate thanksgiving, I rewatched Terence Malick's The New World. I saw the film last New Year's Eve and loved it. I was really disappointed to see the film get critically savaged, but thankfully a small online cult of admirers has risen up, and I think future viewers will rank the film right alongside Malick's 70s work. I think it's easily his best movie, and also one of the greatest films of all time.

The thing I love about the film is the way it thoroughly immerses you in a world. Most films are designed to tell a story, and they use a language that was codified in the classical Hollywood era. Films may be paced faster and less narratively cohesive than they were then, but it's still the same basic structures, shot/reverse shot dialogue, and all style and technique designed to move the narrative forward. It's like this is what film must do, and you very rarely see films that manage to tell a story in a totally different way. The New World is one of them.

Days of Heaven was Malick's first masterpiece, a film that was revolutionary in its focus on visual storytelling. There's very little dialogue in his work, rather, he uses music and voiceover to convey meaning. He's at his best when working with very simple stories, one of the reasons The Thin Red Line is his weakest film is that there's too many characters and events, no chance to just get lost in the emotion of the moment. In The New World, the story is a simple cultural myth, and that means most of the basic work is done for him. Doing a straight adaptation of the Pocohontas story would be horribly misguided because we already know what will happen. To try to build tension in traditional ways just wouldn't work. Because we already know what happens, Malick chooses to focus on immersing us in the world, and making us feel what these characters felt at the time.

In doing so, Malick helps to pioneer a new time of filmmaking that has emerged in the past ten years or so. I think the originator is Wong Kar-Wai, a director whose mid 90s work uses incredibly over the top stylistic techniques to construct uniquely emotional moments. I think Fallen Angels is the most beautifully shot movie of all time because not only are the shots well composed and aesthetically pleasing, each frame illuminates the characters' emotions. The best moments in film are almost always about a fusion of visual and music, and virtually every moment in The New World is just that, a visual narrative with musical accompaniment designed to create an emotional reaction. This is his goal with every moment of the movie, to make you feel. The voiceovers aren't so much about conveying information, it's a spell designed to immerse you in the world the characters are experiencing.

As the film opens, Pocohontas says "Come spirit, let me sing the story of this world," invoking a mystical storytelling power to help create a reality. This is very much in line with what Alan Moore or David Lynch talk about, the idea that the storyteller is a vessel through which some the collective unconscious expresses itself. The editing of the film makes you feel that you're being taken on a kind of hallucinatory journey, experiencing many years of history in a state of reverie. It uses dreamlogic or drug logic, moments stringing together outside of time, rising and falling like music.

The best example of this is near the beginning of the film, after Smith is spared. We experience the essence of his relationship with Pocohontas through a series of perfectly chosen moments. What makes it different than a typical montage is the way the characters seem to step outside of time. The events are arranged into a beautiful pattern of rising emotion, culminating in the unbelievable shot in which the camera rotates around Pocohontas, lightning crashing on the shores behind her. To watch the sequence is like experiencing a compressed dose of pure love, the sequence is a dream of a world that could be, and we spend the rest of the film wanting to return to this pure state.

We finally return there at the end of the film, when Pocohontas comes to terms with the loss of the life she had. The film is largely concerned with growing up, and in her son, she sees the same sense of wonder that she once had. Running through the garden, she rediscovers the passion, culminating in the fantastic scene where she cartwheels across the grass in her formal dress. With the music swelling, we experience her death not as sadness, but as passage, a return to whence she came, and it is good. The editing returns us to that moment we thought lost.

A lot of complaints about The New World claim that it was all style, no substance. In cinema, style is the substance. No other medium can so thoroughly affect your perception and immerse you in a completely different world. This film made me feel like I was there at the birth of contemporary America, and through it, I understood the conflicting emotions they felt at the time. That is a more substantial experience than comes from passive engagement with a traditional narrative. Most films are concerned with making you feel for the characters. This film makes you feel exactly what the characters are feeling, and I think that's a more valuable endeavor.

There are moments in this movie that are among the most beautiful in cinema history. They are beautiful not only from an aesthetic point of view, it is also an emotional beauty. Q'orianka Kilcher in particular conveys such pure joy, it doesn't feel like acting at all, she is completely in that moment. Seeing her joy is infectious.

So, I feel like this film is creating a new cinematic language, one that relies on visuals not words as the foundation point. Film was at first inspired by theater, and then by novels, but in recent years we've seen movies that are not governed by traditional scripts, rather they're governed by the possibilities of visual connection. This film, Wong Kar-Wai's work, Miami Vice and David Lynch's Inland Empire all function in this respect, neglecting traditional, outmoded forms of characater development, preferring instead to focus on putting you in a world and making you feel that way. This film has images so powerful, they touch something primal. It is one of the greatest films of all time, and a critical moment in the evolution of this new cinematic language.

Babylon 5: 'The Gathering'

Back in 2003 when I started watching Buffy on DVD, I'd seen very few long form TV series, but over the past few years, I've gone through pretty much every show I really wanted to see, the shows that were considered essential works of longform television storytelling. However, there was one still out there that I'd heard great things about, and that's Babylon 5. The thing that stopped me from watching it before was the first season's bad reputation.

Most shows today are able to start off strong. For whatever reason, the medium has evolved to the point where a show like Six Feet Under or Lost can come out with a first episode that instantly places you in a specific world, with developed characters and strong style. In the case of Lost, this first episode turned out to be the best moment of the series, but back in the early 90s, it seems like it took longer for shows to find their voice. Buffy's first season is decent, but almost embarassing compared to the greatness that would shortly follow. The same thing is true for The X-Files, which took a season to really find its voice. If I was watching Buffy as it aired, I'm not sure if I would have made it through the first season. And, in the case of Babylon 5, I'm pretty sure I would not make it past the pilot. But, there's an advantage in knowing that something will get better and that means that I'll stick with the show despite the very weak opening.

The first thing that stands out watching the show today is the pathetic effects work. At the time, it was apparently groundbreaking, but most videogames today have better stuff than what we've got here. Particularly coming off of a show like Battlestar Galactica, it's jarring to see stuff that doesn't even come close to reality. As the episode went on, I got more used to it and was able to accept that this is just how it is and I can't ask for more. It does hurt though because any time we're presented with something that's supposed to be dramatic happening in space it has to overcome the hurdle of the blatantly unreal effects.

But, that's not my major problem with the episode. In sci-fi, there's an inherent ridiculousness to the material, and it's up to the actors to make the world into a place that's emotionally real. Someone like Patrick Stewart or Edward James Olmos brings the gravitas you need to create a believable world. Alas, our captain here feels more like a game show host or used car salesman, you get no sense that he's invested in the world, it's more like he's trying to avoid being embarassed by working on the show. His second in command, the Asian woman, is even worse, delivering every line with the same b-movie mix of anger and disinterest. The alien actors are much better, when they're on, it's easier to believe in the reality of the world.

The acting is my main issue with the pilot. I'm not expecting much from the first season, but I just don't see most of these actors ever doing something great. Now, I also couldn't see most of the Buffy actors ever doing the stuff they would do over the course of the series, but most of them were at least alright in the first season, not actively bad.

What's most exciting about the pilot is the glimpses of the larger world in which the series takes place. It seems like the series' overall arc will revolve around the difficulties that the various alien races have in co-existing. Presumably they'll move towards the goal of a universal peace, but constantly be undermined by individual jealousy and selfishness. There's certainly potential in the premise, and pieces of the episode are good, but generally speaking the acting and effects prevent the series from creating a believable reality.

It's always unfortunate to watch a show like this after seeing what it spawned, in a Battlestar Galactica or Firefly. The latter have access to so many more resources in creating their effects, it's very difficult to compare. Yet, you don't really have a choice, and rather than BSG being a pleasant surprise in the growth in quality of its effects work, Babylon 5 winds up looking far below standard.

But, I will be sticking with the show, at least through the first season because I would love to see something as good as people say the later seasons of the show are.

Saturday, November 25, 2006

The Fountain

I've been looking forward to The Fountain for a long time, a really long time. I remember reading about it in 2001, a "post-Matrix" sci-film that would change the genre. As time passed, the project went through a lot of tumult, and it's great to see a director who sticks with his vision and gets it made, making some budget sacrifices, but keeping the essence of the piece intact. After such a long wait, the film itself wound up much simpler than I was expecting. The triptych narrative structure adds a lot of layers, but at its core this is a film about life and death, and the inextricable bond between the two.

The film opens with a striking battle sequence. I love the moment where Tomas is taken by the Mayans and carried to the edge of their pyramid. The flaming sword he encounters later is another really powerful visual, and then it's a jump cut hundreds of years into the future. I wish I knew nothing about the film going in because I'd imagine that cut would be absolutely mind blowing. As was, it's still pretty shocking to plunge into the future like that, into an entirely different world with its own rules.

I don't think there's one definitive interpretation of what is 'real' in the film and what's not. The way I saw it is that the present day stuff is what is real, and the present/future stuff is a mental construction, built by the two characters to allow them to deal with Izzi's cancer. This is made explicit in the fact that the Spanish stuff is connected to a book Izzi wrote. She has imagined herself as Queen Isabella, commissioning her love to find a cure for her disease. At one point, she refers to Tom as a Conquistador in the present, reinforcing this conception of him. I love the moment where she gives him this mission. The way she's lit with glowing white, asking him to make her "his Eve." The Spanish stuff is all very striking, the way we see Isabella hidden behind the grate at first, only gradually coming into view.

Understanding the film requires coming to terms with the way narrative progression proceeds across time. Tomas' quest for the fountain of youth is the same thing that Tom is seeking in the present. It's also the same as the man in the bubble, forever seeking the secrets of the tree.

While Izzi imagines Tom as a conquistador, he prefers to see himself as a Buddhist from the future, but the constant is that he's seeking that which will allow him to overcome death. In the early part of the film, the editing connects the Tom of the bubble with the Tom of the present, fitting because it's his hallucination. This is how he imagines his scientific work, part of an ageless quest for immortality. He knows that Izzi will die, and he sees himself continuing to work far into the future, until he finally finds a cure. The tattoos equate him with the tree, the rings representing the passage of time, from the one dot in the present to the whole covered arm of the future.

The film works in a different way from most movies. I didn't find myself with a deep emotional connection to the characters, the film may be about these two people, but it's concerned with bigger themes. We don't need to understand them as real, developed characters, and we don't get much of a background on either. From their subjective mental constructions, we can gain a better understanding, but the first half of the movie only gives us enough to care about them, and make the second half of the movie work. I think the telescope scene is sweet and sad, but I'm not desperately caught up in this love.

As a filmmaker, Aronofsky is not interested in creating traditional emotional reactions. Rather, he shows you things that are affecting on an intellectual level, you're moved emotionally. The visceral violence of the end of Requiem is designed to overwhelm you on a human level. It's not the fact that this is happening to characters we know that makes it awful, it's the fact that the stuff is just so awful, you can have no other reaction. Similarly, this film taps into imagery with a primal power, and creates emotions through engaging with the universal human interest in issues of life and death.

As the film progresses, Tom's obsession with stopping death begins to cause more and more problems with his life. We see this at a number of moments, when he doesn't go for a walk with her because he's working. In trying to save her, he winds up missing the last moments he could share with her, something that's reinforced when we see her with Ellen Burstyn, sharing real emotion. He can not live in the moment, see past her impending death and appreciate the last of her life.

When Izzi dies, the audience is placed in Tom's mindset. What makes it hurt so much is the fact that he just found out the solution is making the cancer recede. He could have saved her, but it's too late. His grief is mixed up with his failure as a scientist. At her funeral, Ellen Burstyn talks about her life, but Tom can't listen to it. He only sees his failure to save her, not the moments that came before.

This leads us into the mindblowing finale of the movie. The first hour or so is really well done, but I felt like it never took off into the realm of greatness. I've talked before about the idea of the moment in film, that the best films are the ones that feature moments where you just gasp, awed by the convergence of visual, sound/music and narrative to create a singular emotional reaction. I watch movies for those moments, to be awed and humbled, and that's what the end of this film does.

Before the end of the film, the Spanish sequences were Izzi's vision, her conception of Tom, an explorer seeking to help her. However, when she dies, the last chapter remains unwritten. It is up to Tom to imagine the finale, and that means the intrusion of his mental motifs, most notably the tree. Pi makes frequent reference to the Kaballah, and it clearly informs this film. My knowledge of the Kaballah comes primarily from the journey up the tree of life sequence in Promethea. I'd imagine you could easily map the stages of this film to the nine stages of the journey up the tree. The basic idea is to pass through the human world, and up towards enlightenment. To reach enlightenment, you must pass through the land of the dead and at the end of the journey, you are reborn.

One of the best moments in the film is when we see Tom in lotus position suspended over the Mayan guardian, prompting the Mayan to tell him he is the father of the world. This is Tom's fantasy, the idea that he could be the person to give eternal life to the world, and in the process, save Izzi. So, he proceeds out and finds the tree. While the tree is a reference to the Kaballah, it is explicitly name dropped as the tree of life from the garden of Eden. Tom seeks eternal life for himself, but when he greedily drinks the tree's sap, which looks not unlike sperm, an inseminating force taken into the vessel of his body. Tom is shocked when trees begin to grow out of him, he wanted eternal life for himself, ignorant of the fact that the act of giving life inevitably means giving up a part of yourself. The moment is a reenactment of the Mayan creation myth, Tom's death giving way to a new world. The moment also refers to Izzi's discussion of the man who had a seed planted on his grave so that a piece of him would be carried out into the world after he died.

These events are paralleled in the progress of the future version of himself. He moves out of his bubble, the prison in which he seeks a cure for death. He moves beyond this limited thought as he journeys towards his own symbolic death. I love the visual of him moving through the trippy environment, zen like in the bubble. He finally reaches the white, and everything goes black except for a small white dot on the screen. Then, in a phenomenally dazzling moment, all of reality rushes in, ripping his skin off and pouring him down into the cosmos. That is the moment I was waiting for, utterly overwhelming me with the power of the visual imagery. This is the same as the trees coming out of Tom, his life essence dispersed to create something new.

This leads us back to the past, where Tom is again offered the chance to walk outside with Izzi. Rather than work, he chooses to spend the moment with her. Then, he is left standing outside, looking at her grave, into which he puts a seed, acknowledging the reality of death and the fact that the end of life is actually an opening to rebirth, a passage into something new rather than a concrete ending. Earlier in the film, Tom was not content with the fact that they were improving Donovan's mental functioning, he worried only about his impending death. Now, he recognizes that it is more important to live life in the moment than to worry about the inevitability of death. He is out of his bubble and open to a larger world.

The thing I love about this movie is the way it tackles these massive themes that are very rarely explored in cinema. I've heard the film compared to 2001, and while I don't think it's quite that good, it stands with that film in terms of being a piece of visual philosophy, using the possibilities of the medium to make you experience an entirely other world, and attack a human truth in the process. The person whose work it most reminds me of is Grant Morrison. The cut to a bald man in lotus position instantly conjures GM, and his bubble is very reminiscent of Zatanna. But, more than that, the film fluidly moves between different realities, demanding the audience to accept everything as real rather than seek some kind of trick to read things. It's much like Flex Mentallo, in that you can arrange it into a linear story, which I did, but also look at is just a flowing experience of different worlds. Just because the Spanish stuff is a story doesn't meant that it's any less valid than the so called 'reality' of the film, and that's a very Morrison thing.

And the central theme of the film goes right along with The Invisibles. In The Invisibles, we are told time is soil for us to grow in, and this film sees death as a seed that will give birth to new life. They each answer the critical question of why do bad things happen to us. It turns out they happen because the bad things make us stronger, bad experiences are the fuel for creation, we can use the negative as a base for something new and good.

Morrison talked about the fact that people have trouble processing metaphor, and I think that's a large part of why the film isn't connecting with a lot of people. It's easy to dismiss this and say that the characters aren't particularly well developed and the multiple time periods are pointless and confusing, but that's to ignore the fact that it's all real. It's not easy to see beyond our world, but when looking at a film, or life for that matter, it's important to accept movement between realities and understand that what is real is not necessarily that which is physical. Anything that affects you emotionally is 'real,' and that's why fiction is important. Fictional characters can do more to change the world than real people. In the case of this film, the themes are important and central to the human experience. Aronofsky should be rewarded for challenging the audience with an unconventional structure and a surplus of ideas. I would heartily recommend this film, if you're interested, please go see it in the theater and tell the studios that unique, visionary films like this are appreciated and wanted.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Michael Richards, Borat and the Limits of Shock Comedy

Over the past couple of days, Seinfeld star Michael Richards has gotten into a lot of the trouble for his racial invective filled rant at a comedy club. All the info is here, including videos of both the moment itself and the incredibly awkward six minute apology on Letterman. Obviously he said some really awful things, and I doubt he'll ever be able to shake the stigma of this, nor should he. If you're a public figure, no matter what you actually feel, you just don't say this stuff in public.

When I first heard about the story, I saw it as just another Mel Gibson type situation. The quotes from articles were horrible, and at first, his apology is a fairly standard "I didn't mean it" kind of thing. However, as he goes on, he talks about what led him to say these things. Basically, as a performer, he uses a lot of free association to move deep into character. His comedy is entirely based on stripping off self consciousness and getting lost in the material.

If you watch the video, it becomes more clear that what he's saying is to some extent a performance. After the initial comments, he steps back and says something like "Ooh, this shocks you?" After this, he goes even further and loses the audience in the process. The whole thing raises the question of where performance ends and where actual racism begins. If he's trying to maintain authority as a performer, he's going to want to prey on his hecklers and use their comments to his advantage. So, he plays on the easiest target, their race. The question is, is he entering into the character of a racist at this moment or is it is his own beliefs coming out?

I can't say for sure, but I think it's interesting that this controversy occurs only a few weeks after everyone is lauding Borat for supposedly exposing the below the surface intolerance of Americans. With Borat, Baron Cohen enters into a character and utters a consistent stream of hate speech, directed at blacks, Jews and others. To the people in the film, there's no indication that Borat is a construction, or that his beliefs are any less than genuine, he is using this character to create a safe space for people to express their hate.

But, at the same time, he is saying very hateful things. What makes his constant jokes about Jews different than what Richards does here? The obvious answer is the distinction between Borat and Cohen. Every review seems to mention the film's antisemitism, qualified with a remark about Cohen's own Orthodox background. It's easy for us to laugh at Borat because we're aware that he is poking fun at this point of view. The actual man is far removed from the character.

However, with Richards, there's no clear line between the character and the performer. It's quite possible that in that moment, he saw entering this racist persona as the best way to grab the crowd's attention and counter the hecklers. At first, he seems to enjoy the fact that his words have created such shock, and only after does the crowd turn on him. If you read Borat without the distance of knowing he's a fictional character, it'd be very easy to have the same reaction.

In the end, I think the difference in reaction comes down to three things. One is insider status. Seinfeld itself actually commented on this phenomenon when they had Tim Whatley convert to Judaism for the jokes. An oppressed group can make fun of themselves without consequence, but it's a lot tougher for someone outside the group to make those same jokes. Richards crosses an unacceptable social line by invoking actual hate speech.

The second major difference is the tone. Borat gets away with a lot of what he does because he's such a genial guy. There doesn't seem to be genuine malice behind what he's saying, whereas Richards, by his own admission, is fueled with rage and as a result, stops being funny. On Seinfeld, Kramer could get away with a lot of insensitive things because there was an innate innocence/naivete to the character, and Richards had none of that on stage.

I'm not going to pass judgment on Richards, but it's clear he crossed a line in the performance. I suppose that's the danger of being such a free performer, that you'll channel something you don't want out into the world, and I'd imagine we're not going to see him doing standup again.

But, so much of what is hailed about today's great comedies are their willingness to tackle taboo subjects. Shows like Arrested Development and The Office frequently use race in their humor, and it's notable that at first the audience on Letterman treats Richards' apology as a bit, with sporadic laughter until Jerry says "Stop laughing, it's not funny." Apparently, the show was taped before the scandal broke, and if you didn't know it was real, it'd be pretty easy to think that Richards' apology was a gag, pushing awkward comedy to its limits. Just the other day, I was saying the American Office didn't work because it wasn't painful enough. Well, this apology was painful and not very funny at all.

Gilmore Girls: 'Introducing Lorelai Planetarium' (7x08)

Last week's episode saw a major, and rather inexplicable development in the Gilmore Girls universe: the wedding of Lorelai and Christopher. This isn't the first time that Lorelai and Christopher have been close to getting married, at the end of season two they were engaged, only to find out that Sheri was pregnant with Gigi, throwing their plans awry. The moment when Lorelai finds out was the most wrenching emotional moment the series presented until the end of season five. Lorelai is so desperately close to getting what she wants, and then has to just stand by and let Christopher do 'the right thing.' If she is selfish and makes him choose her over Gigi, she puts Sheri in the situation that she was with Rory, and she can't do that.

Throughout the series, we've frequently seen Lorelai teased with the possibility of getting married. It happened with Max in season one, with Chris in season two and then in season five with Luke, she finally takes the initiative and reaches out for what she wants. That was a great moment, and the gradual break apart over the course of season six is painful to watch. This culminates with the most excruciatingly painful moment of the series, when a drunk Lorelai walks up to the mic at Lane's wedding and laments the fact that she wont' get married, that it's not for her. It's so sad to see all her fears pour out there, and it makes something that the plot necessitated, Lorelai not getting married, a critical piece of her character arc. She's created this independent, hyper-chatty persona partially as a defense mechanism. She claims that she's living the life she wants, but part of her longs for a more traditional life. Particularly with Rory leaving her, the loneliness comes to the fore.

That's what I love about season six of the show, the way it shows Lorelai's life in transition. As she loses everyone she cares about, the old ways just don't work anymore, and it's this very personality she's constructed as a defense that winds up driving Luke away from her. He fears that she will eclipse him in April's affections, that is why he pulls away from her. It's critical to note the lack of Rory/Lorelai interaction in late season six. As Luke is getting closer to his daughter, Lorelai is losing hers.

What this sets up for us is the importance of marriage in Lorelai's life. Her persona is largely defined in relation to the idea of marriage, so getting married should be a major deal. However, rather than honoring her character we get a sweeps month gimmick cliffhanger in which she all of a sudden marries Christopher. I don't think the choice to have them get married is necessarily a bad one, it's just the presentation puts the emphasis on shock value, I think it's a huge mistake to not see Lorelai's reaction in the moment.

Now, to some extent we can see it all in this episode. Lorelai is clearly uneasy, but wanted so badly to be married that she put her fears away and created justifications in her head. However, I feel like this just isn't a smart road to go down. Lorelai's unspoken pain was the whole point of season six, and it feels a waste to do a retread of that storyline one season later. It's the same dynamic as Luke last season, with her not speaking up about her issues and suffering in silence. I think it would have been more fruitful to have Lorelai really commited to the marriage and gradually bring in her discontent.

Plus, the way it's presented now, there's basically no chance that the marriage will last. The episode even goes out of the way to draw attention to Luke in a really odd scene. On the one hand, the show is all about building gimmicky tension, yet it passes up the chance to show a potentially interesting scene where Christopher asks why she's going to see April in the hospital, or even why she's the first person Luke calls. The way it is now Christopher is just too perfect. He's got an unlimited bank account and total optimism about their future. The problem with that is that it makes Lorelai's discomfort solely personal, and more difficult for the audience to side with her. Chris has always been something of a bastard, why not bring that side out and push the relationship to an uncomfortable place? That way you'd get more tension than just waiting for whatever event will occur to break up the marriage.

The way it plays now it feels like a betrayal of Lorelai's journey. The whole point of season six was for her to finally speak up for herself, and now we've got her suffering in silence again. That journey is the critical component of the series, and without it, we've got nothing more than a soap opera drifting from plot to plot.

Elsewhere, I'm glad to see the show actually interrogate the wealthiness of its environment. I was just thinking, wow, everyone's got a ton of money. So, it was good to see Rory write the piece. However, I feel like that scene played too much like a caricature, it would have been more cutting for Rory to find fault in less exaggerated characters. I did like the conflict between Rory and Logan, which gets to the core of her arc. Is she like her mom, a small town self made girl, or is she like her grandparents, Gilmores? In one of the series' best moments, we see Dean standing outside a party at her grandparents' house, knowing that she has crossed over. So, it's good to interrogate that again.

It's also good to have Logan back in the US. He's a character who forces tension into scenes, and I'd be curious to see more of Lorelai's reaction to the life that Rory is entering into. Is she proud of Rory for moving back into high society, or resentful? Clearly, Rory is not going to live in a place like Stars Hollow, or hold values like her mom's. And how will her unease mesh with the fact that she married this ridiculously rich guy? Is she too betraying her values?

This episode was more entertaining than a lot of the recent ones, but the construction of the series is still deeply troubling. Lorelai's been crippled, and Lane, my other favorite character, was completely assassinated. If you have a character who's unique because she has a band, and unlike most of the supporting cast, actually has an arc that's moving forward, why saddle her with a lame stock plot in the pregnancy. Note that Lane hasn't played any drums since being pregnant, is that part of her life done? That's a complete betrayal of everything the character was about for the first seven seasons of the show.

So, it's looking more and more like the end of season six was the 'series finale' for the show. It's still entertaining most of the time, but most of what was built has been neglected and we're just spinning wheels, not moving forward.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Robert Altman

Sadly, Robert Altman died today. Over the past year, I've seen a whole bunch of his films and come to appreciate what a distinctive voice he was in cinema. He's one of the few directors unique enough to earn his own adjective, Altmanesque. I'd always thought of Altmanesque as realistic, big cast films featuring meandering art cinema style narratives. Nashville and Short Cuts are the archetypal examples of this, though McCabe and Mrs. Miller and a bunch of his other films that I haven't seen, like A Wedding or Pret a Porter, fit that description. However, watching his stuff I saw many different sides of Altman, a guy who can go from the observational realism of Nashville to the intense subjectivity of Images or 3 Women and also into genre work, be it the crime film in The Long Goodbye or the musical/childrens' film in Popeye. Not all his films work, but that's the consequence of being a guy who makes a lot of movies. Altman is in the mode of someone like Fassbinder, who seemed driven to make as many films as possible, maybe never finding the perfect polish of someone like Kubrick, but in the time it took Kubrick to make one film, Altman had already made five great ones.

One of the things I admire most about Altman is how he was able to keep his universe evolving as he got older. So many directors of his time burnt out and were reduced to directing crap. However, he made it through the dark time of the 80s without compromising his artistic vision, and came out the other side with the chance to make the films he wanted to make again. I think his 70s work is the best he's done, but it's very rare that you see someone remain artistically vital for so long. I love that he was still making films right up until he died and I hope that I can keep the passion and commitment that Altman had when I get as old as he was. It's great that Altman received an honorary Oscar earlier this year, and A Prarie Home Companion was a nice note to end his career on. The film is not a hugely significant entry in his canon, but it was sweet, and knowing it was his last film makes the countdown to the end of the show all the more poignant.

There's a general feeling that artists have at max ten years relevance, after that they descend into repitition or irrelevance. In film, I feel like a lot of directors lose touch with real life. When all you do is work on set filming movies, you're bound to lose the sense of what life is like for people outside the industry. This means that it becomes more difficult to find personal fire to fuel your films. Directors like Scorsese and Coppola both started with very personal, passionate projects and gradually became work for hire directors, making well made movies, but no one thinks that The Aviator has the same fire as Mean Streets. With Altman, you never got the sense that he had been absorbed into the industry. He kept a distance and that allowed him to remain personally vital, to keep bringing passion to the variety of projects that he took on in his later years. And his style never stagnated, A Prarie Home Companion is a dynamic and exciting a film, using camera movement and scene construction in unique, groundbreaking ways.

If you've only seen the big Altman films, like Nashville, I'd highly reccomend checking out 3 Women and Images. These two films are unlike most of the stuff in his oeuvre in that they're intensely subjective. Both are concerned with the restrictions placed on women by society, and use dreamlogic storytelling to explore the issue. Mulholland Dr. and Inland Empire both have a lot in common with these films. 3 Women in particular is a lot of fun to analyze, full of psychological loose ends and mysteries that make it great for repeat viewing. I'd consider Nashville his best film, but it's a crime that 3 Women hasn't received more support from the critical community. But, there is a great Criterion DVD out, definitely worth a look.

I've written a bunch about Altman's work over this past year, here's the links.

3 Women
Images
McCabe and Mrs. Miller
Nashville
Short Cuts

Monday, November 20, 2006

The Office (US)/Knowing Me, Knowing You

Recently, I've been watching the the American version of The Office, through episode 2x06. I watched the first episode when it aired and was pretty unimpressed. It felt like a community theater group ding a take on a show I'd just seen on Broadway, the lines were the same, but something was off. However, watching the first twelve episodes on DVD, I've seen the show grow into its own thing, a thing that is good, but nowhere near the quality of the original.

My major issue with the show, particularly in the second season, is that every episode seems to be scrambling to get the characters out of the office. The whole point of the show is to dwell on the mundane realities of day to day life, and find humor in the interactions between people at work. Sure, the British version had the club episode and a couple of other field trips, but generally speaking, most of the plots revolved around goings on in The Office itself, and the difficulty of navigating the office social scene.

However, with the American version, there's all kinds of outside plots being brought in to punch things up. David Brent didn't do much work, but at least he was in the office, Michael Scott is out all the time, and seems to make no effort to do anything. I could believe that Brent didn't get fired, but it's hard to imagine they're happy with what Michael's doing. Now, I think the character does work on some level. The second season premiere found that perfect awkwardness when the people make fun of Michael's song parodies. That scene was tough to watch, and emotionally satisfying when the others stood up for him. However, having Michael crank call Ryan as Michael Jackson is more absurd than sad. He's a less believable character then Brent, because with Brent you got the sense that he was trying to hard to perform for his office mates, while Carrell seems to be trying to hard to perform for us, the viewers. His acting is so over the top it takes me out of the reality of the show, the one thing the British show never punctured.

The American version frequently makes note of its status as a documentary, but it feels much more artificial than the raw British version. A lot of that is simply due to the sitcomy nature of a lot of the plots. Dwight in particular feels totally removed from reality, whereas Gareth seemed like a believable loser. Pam and Jim do the best in translation, but I don't feel the investment in their relationship that I had for Tim and Dawn. That's largely because I've already seen the resolution for their counterparts, and that relationship has been mythologized in my mind, standing over the Pam/Jim dynamic. I think the most fruitful territory there is in seeing both Pam and Jim's defensiveness about their flirting. The moment where Angela tells Pam about her game is fantastic, as is the unease when they have their mock fight in the dojo.

I think the major problem is that the show has to sustain an indefinite length. As any comedy goes on, the plots get more and more outlandish and the rough edges are hewn off characters. The UK Office is like the first two or three seasons of Seinfeld, painfully sharp in its distillation of human interaction. The US version is like the later years, still funny, but much broader. Because the UK version had so few episodes, we never had to delve into the issue of where David lives or who Gareth's sensei is. Instead, we only see the characters in the work environment, and as viewers, we are immersed in that world. Some of the most memorable moments in the UK version are those quiet shots of stuff printing and people working, downtime that is allowed because of the longer running time of UK episodes. The eight additional minutes per episode gives them the chance to have a slower pace and give a better sense of actual work going on.

And ultimately I feel like the UK version told the story. Despite the growth, the basic plot arcs still draw from the British series, and I've already seen Brent redeemed and Tim and Dawn united. I don't know that I really care to see it happen again. Plus, I tend to find British restrained pompousness funnier than the American outright stupidity when it comes to comedy.

That's a good segue into the other show I've been watching, Knowing Me, Knowing You. Ah ha. I first heard about this show from Tristram-Shandy, and now I get the contsant references to Knowing Me whoever, Knowing You Steve Coogan. I'm sure in the UK this was played out as an Austin Powers quote in 2000, but it's just so fun to say. And, luckily, this is not the UK. The downside is that no one would have any idea what I'm talking about if I reference the show. Anyway, I read an article that talked about how "I'm Alan Partridge" focused on the character after his show had ended. I love works that explore multiple layers of a piece of fiction, and I think it's a fantastic conceit to position Alan as a real person outside of the show. This intrigued me enough to give Knowing Me, Knowing You a look.

This show was made in 1994, and its style of awkward embarassing comedy clearly went on to influence many other shows, particularly The Office. Like The Office, this show focuses on a man who's got a massive ego and no clue about the total disdain or indifference others feel towards him. Coogan plays the character in such a way that there's very few explicit jokes. For the first few minutes of the first episode, I wasn't laughing too much because it just felt like a standard, uninspiring chat show. However, once you figure out this guy, his rampant egotism becomes increasingly hilarious. I love the way he constantly says his own name and forces everyone else to adopt his catchphrase, even a widow standing over her husband's coffin.

As the series wears on, bits like his constant punning on chat and his antagonism with Glen Ponder yield many laughs. The series also perfectly captures the dynamic of banal chat shows, with Alan constantly trying to control the dynamic of the conversation, but frequently finding himself losing power. Much like Brent on The Office, the humor comes from watching someone who thinks he's much funnier than he is come up against the reality of the situation and struggle to deal with it. Partridge is essentially a conservative guy, and he can't deal with the people he's forced to work with on the show.

The show works best when everyone plays things straight and lets Partridge simmer in his own issues. A bit like the Kojak Slaphead scene at the end of episode five goes too over the top, out of the realm of reality. Of course, a lot of my criticism of both this and The Office is based purely on personal taste. A bit like the jacuzzi scene at the end of episode four could be criticized as equally ridiculous, but it's funny, so I forgive it.

I also like how the show does give Alan the chance to be right occasionally. By making the French designer's clothes so ridiculous, we can easily agree with what Alan's saying. There, the humor comes from Alan's tactless treatment of his guests more than his innatte wrongness. And he also gest some nice moments, like the Abba medley, which is played for laughs, but ends up being pretty sweet and entertaining on its own.

It's pretty easy to trace a line from this show to the comedy of Borat or Stephen Colbert. If the show was done today, we'd probably see the Partridge character interviewing real people and provoking them in the same way he provokes the fictional people here. The show is a critical step in creating a style of comedy with few overt jokes, that instead presents a character who is inherently ridiculous and lets the audience laugh at his behavior, to the point that his attempts at humor become funny because of how they fail as jokes, rather then their actual value as humor. It's a complex blend of fiction and reality, and I'm excited to see it further complicated with "I'm Alan Partridge."

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Casino Royale

I've never been a huge fan of the Bond series. Goldfinger's a fun movie, as is Goldeneye, but each movie has a similar formula, and the more you watch in a row, the more the similarities become apparent. So, the producers are faced with the problem of keeping things fresh film after film. With the latter Brosnan films they tried to do this by raising the stakes, making bigger and bigger setpieces until we got the invisible car and ice palace laser destruction sequence of Die Another Day, a film in which nearly every piece of dialogue was a cheesy line. After the excess, they smartened up and decided to scale things back and return some humanity to the character. It was a smart choice and works really well, resulting in the best Bond film ever made.

The opening sequence announces the change in intention. Rather than the increasingly massive setpieces used as the series went on, we get stark black and white and a cold Bond gunning his enemy down before he can complete his cliche. This is intercut with some nice, grainy shots of a nasty fight in a bathroom, Bond's first kill. This segues brilliantly into the classic gunsight opening and a very nice opening titles sequence. Now, some of this restraint and grit is undermined by the lengthy, over the top chase sequence that follows. It's a cool sequence, but indicates a bit of a compromise, reassuring the action audience that there's plenty for them here too.

This opening section of the film is solid, but in light of the quality later on, I think it could have been trimmed a bit. Having both the first chase action sequence and the plane/truck sequence pushes things too far in the not forwarding the plot spectacle department. The second sequence came too early in the film for such an extended setpiece, it would have been better to tighten it a bit. That said, I think the film gives you a better sense of Bond as a great agent, rather than a superhero. He's trained well enough that jumping over all those buildings doesn't drain him, but he's not able to do it with much style either. This Bond is all about just getting the job done, no matter the violence that's involved in doing so.

Now, a grittier Bond isn't necessarily a huge jump beyond what we've seen before. It makes the action sequences more tense, because Bond has to prove himself, but that's not enough to make the movie works. The biggest success is in finally giving Bond a foil who's an equal, not by trying to make a rival for Bond's action prowess, but giving him someone who's equally good at hiding her emotions and placing 'the mission' over personal interest. In most Bond movies, there's the 'good girl' and the 'bad girl,' and a clear delineation between the two. Usually, Bond will sleep with the bad girl, but eventually reject her and wind up with the 'good girl,' the one who gives him some assistance in his mission, but is more an object to be saved.

What Eva Green's Vesper does is fuse the two archetypes. For most of the film, she seems to be Bond's ally, and despite her initial resistance, quickly succumbs to his charms. However, for the first time, we see Bond as the one who's getting played. He lets down his guard and falls in love with her, and when he finds out she's betrayed him, it hurts him both as a man and a spy. He's let his emotions weaken him, and from this betrayal, we can see where the man who exists in the later films comes from. Bond doesn't trust women and won't get close to them because doing so means opening himself up to the betrayal he experiences here. The only way for him to ensure that this doesn't happen again is to never let his guard down, to put the man away and be only the spy.

It's not evident the first time through, but looking, Vesper goes through the same process. She is a professional spy, and does not want to fall in love with Bond. When she does, it presents awful complications for her, unlike MI6, her crew will not let her leave so easily. The parallels between the two characters are set up from the beginning, the fact that they're likely both orphans, who have had to shield their emotions. Vesper also had the troubled breakup with the Armenian guy, Bond is her way to overcome that hurt. In Venice, they both saw a future with the possibility of real emotional attachment. There's a brief moment of happiness before it all goes awry. Since Vesper was bringing them the money to pay for Bond's life, it means that Bond's spy instincts, his lack of trust for her, was what messed things up for both of them. Now, we don't know if M was lying to him when she said that, but I believe that Vesper was trying to save James. It's more poignant that way. The spy returned and that meant the end of James as emotionally open man.

The end of the film functions sort of like the end of Revenge of the Sith. We've been waiting the whole time to see James Bond, badass, emerge. But, like the revelation of Vader in Sith, the 'birth' we've been looking forward to turns out to be a death. Bond's theme song heralds the birth of the cold, professional, emotionless man who we see in the other films of the series. It's a fantastic moment, the slow build of the theme song as Mr. White climbs up the stairs, culminating in the shot of Bond holding an automatic and delivering the line. But, there's a sadness in it too. His brief respite from the life is over and now we know he'll be 007 for life.

The end of the film also sets up interesting sequel possibilities, as Bond will presumably investigate the organization that Vesper worked for. I heard that they were planning to do an actual continuation with the next sequel, which would be cool. However, it does raise the issue of how to avoid the character problems that the other films were plagued with, this one was all about bringing Bond to that point, how do they keep him interesting after he's been emotionally shut down here.

And, I'll definitely miss the presence of Eva Green, who did fantastic work here. Her performance in The Dreamers is one of the most raw, emotionally vulnerable I've seen, and she brings humanity to the character here. Her and Craig make what could have been a somewhat cliched relationship really work, and that emotional base is what makes this one of the best action films of recent years. All the special effects in the world can't replicate an emotional engagement with characters, and this film had that.

So, I was really happy with this film. It got a lot of critical praise, and deservedly so. I think a bit of tightening on the top end could have made it a better film, but I'm sure a lot of the audience was there for the action setpieces, and the franchise needs to fulfill that demand. The Bond franchise is about beautiful people in beautiful places doing ugly things, and this film delivered on that better than any other in the series.