An Indie Filmmaker Answers My Question

A couple days ago I e-mailed one of the producers I'd met briefly at AFF (I won't name him so he doesn't get bombarded, but he's an indie producer with a lot of experience). To be honest, I didn't expect any kind of answer; I've gotten used to being ignored, to having my queries disappear into a void. (Another producer informed me if he sees "query" in the subject line of an e-mail, he deletes it without ever opening it. Good to know.)

Anyway, this filmmaker did answer me, which is very kind of him because I know he's incredibly busy as most people in the industry tend to be. I had asked him the question I couldn't seem to get an answer to while at AFF: I've got this short script with this great feedback, so now what?

The producer laid it out for me thusly, saying I basically had three options, none of them perfect (but then what in this world is):

If you're looking for work as a writer, I think the simplest answer is to learn from the work and write something else...like another short or a feature. You might also want to try and share it with writing agents as a sample. It can be tough getting responses from agents though, so this may not work. I operate by the idea that the more persistent you are, the better. I still haven't gotten a paying film career together, but I keep making movies (9 features now, I think), and most times, we seem to get a bit more notice than the time before...It's a long slow build though, which is what I think that whole "Sundance is dead" was getting at. Very, very few people make one thing and get noticed - it's about continuing to work and work and work and cumulatively building something. It's not lucrative along the way, and it's a constant struggle.

If you want to make the short, I'd recommend signing up for a production class and making it yourself, which would be its own learning experience. Things never really turn out how you imagined when you shoot them, but the act of doing it makes you a stronger writer and filmmaker.

There's a chance you might be able to find someone else interested in making it, but then only if you pay for it. Most working filmmakers have a list of things they want to do, and if they're established, the only reasons they seem to make shorts are to test out ideas in a direction they're thinking about heading on a feature or to make a sample that can later be turned into one. Shorts just don't have much potential beyond festival screenings, and for many established filmmakers, fests are not that meaningful.

It's really kind of awesome that he was willing to answer me, and with such nice detail about the various avenues. I'm currently trying to decide how badly I want to pursue this. I'm inclined to shelve it at the moment and finish the couple prose projects I have going, namely the "St. Peter" sequel and my novel The K-Pro. After all, I can do that at home with little expense. Making a movie requires a gearing up, like a wind up before the pitch; it's a huge expenditure of time, energy, and yes, money. I'm not sure I'm there yet, and I figure if there's even a little doubt in my mind, that's probably not the best start.

Still, if anyone wants a well-reviewed short screenplay to take on as a film project . . . *wink*

Cross posted to PepperWords.

Television: Elementary, "Child Predator"

Nothing like a blunt title to let viewers know exactly what the episode is about (even when it's a play on words). Although one has to wonder if this means there will be no other episodes about child predators. Or maybe the next one with a child predator will have a title like "Another Child Predator" or simply "Child Predator 2." ("Child Predator Too?")

In this particular "Child Predator" episode, the writers hit the marks of Sherlock Holmes's insomnia and lack of appetite, traits typical to Holmes in all his incarnations and adaptations, as Doyle often made much of the detective's strange habits. The take on Watson's tendency to talk too much is also a common one, though less rooted in Doyle's stories.

As for the stories being told by the writers of the show—stories unrelated to Doyle's originals—they have a ripped-from-old-headlines feel eminently suitable for CBS's usual, greying demographic, those who primarily enjoy police procedurals with very regular plot points and pacing. Therefore the writing is solid but far from dynamic.

I enjoy JLM's twitchy nature, though it occurs to me it must be an exhausting method of acting. Liu as Watson has a pleasing stillness that counterbalances this. Yes, even when she's doing calisthenics. Perhaps it's an inner quietude, just as Holmes's restlessness originates at his core and radiates outward.

JLM also plays Holmes as strangely earnest, a quality not as often punched up in other versions of the character. Yet this is not a complete departure from Doyle, either, since the original Holmes was not only brilliant but equally eager to perform; he liked to show off. And while Holmes's arrogant streak is a favorite of writers and actors, what Holmes also had was a deep desire to see justice done, and even, at times, an earnestness in that drive. Maybe not to the extent of Elementary, but it's interesting to see those levels brought up when they are so often damped down.

Elementary is thus far a good program but not a great one. I'm waiting for it to hinge less on the plot and begin to develop more character.

Austin Film Festival: Day 4 (Panel)

I only had time to attend one morning panel on the fourth and final conference day (the festival itself continues through the week with screenings, but the conference has ended). The panel I attended was on "Independent Production: Crowdfunding Your Indie Project." Again, I'm not really sure if I will go this route, but I like to have the information so I can get a sense of all the options out there.

A quick explanation of "crowdfunding": sites like Kickstarter and Indiegogo allow filmmakers, musicians, inventors, whoever, to plead their cases to the general population. In other words, you can go on one of these sites and beg for money for your project. A little bit here and there begins to add up. The idea is that if everyone gives just a little, as opposed to having a big investor, the creative artist can realize his or her dream without the interference that big money tends to bring. Or, really, if you can't get the big money, get a lot of little money.

The panel was moderated by Evan Fitzmaurice and featured Jeremy Cloe, Lisa Rudin, and Victoria Westcott. Mostly these three spoke about their own experiences raising money via Kickstarter, as each has done so successfully. For example, Cloe stated he had already made a short film, which he posted on Kickstarter to give backers an idea of what the feature he was planning might look like. (I probably should have asked what a writer can hope to post to get people to give, since it sounds like Kickstarter requires a video of some kind, and my sitting and talking about the project wouldn't be terribly interesting.)

Of course, having a social media presence is key to a successful crowdfunding campaign. One can't start with just three Facebook friends and hope to get $10k. Well, you can, but you shouldn't be surprised when you don't raise the funds. (By the way, stats show that while the average goal is about $4500, campaigns are more successful when they ask for $10-20k.) It was suggested by one of the panelists that you make a contact list of pretty much everyone you know and start there. Roll it out to friends, family, online acquaintances, and try to get the word to spread. Another interesting statistic that came up: it takes an average of seven times of reading/hearing about something before a person is likely to act. That means seven times of seeing your e-mail or Tweet or FB posting before they might actually go look at your Kickstarter page and give some money.

Thirty days seems to be the right amount of time for a campaign. Rudin said if you start strong, that's a good sign. From the sound of things, a strong start and finish are the key; in the middle, don't panic if there's a little bit of a plateau. Of course, if you don't get that strong start . . . Maybe panic then.

Swag is a good way to get backers. Promising little perks at various donation levels. But it's also important to be honest and clear when dealing with donors: they will not make their money back, they will not get a return on their "investment." At best, it's a tax write-off. Meanwhile, promise those who give $75 a copy of the DVD, and give really major backers an acknowledgement in the credits, a ticket to the premiere, whatever. Just also remind them to be patient since making a movie takes time as well as money. If you can guess as to when these goodies will be available, that's great, but also be clear that schedules are subject to change.

Now Kickstarter recently came under fire when it was noticed that some less-than-worthy types were using it to raise money and then never deliver the project. (This happened to me when I bought into an of-the-month club on Etsy, so I can understand that frustration.) Kickstarter is working to crack down on this, which is why it requires so much from the artists hoping to raise funds: the video, the plan, a promise that if you get the money, you will make the project. There are legal ramifications and SEC issues swirling, but I won't go into those. Sufficient to say that if you use Kickstarter or its brethren, you must have a solid project and present yourself as utterly trustworthy because you will be fighting a certain amount of skepticism. This is why the social network is so important, since having people to vouch for you goes a long way.

Meanwhile, don't under- or over-report things. If you show up too much in a person's Facebook feed, they'll probably hide you. Only send updates—whether via e-mail, Tweets, or FB—when there is interesting or important news. Some people may want more, but don't put it in their faces. Instead, keep up a production blog that lets them go deeper if they so desire. This will also put your backers at ease that the project is real and is happening; you haven't taken their money and run.

That sums up what I took away from this particular panel. A lot of good information. It may seem like common sense, but it's always nice to hear from people who've been there and done that.

Austin Film Festival: Day 3 (Screening, Murder by Decree)

Sorry I'm a little behind, but the hotel's wi-fi went out and then I spent a day traveling, so . . .

On the evening of the 20th, Chris Carter hosted a screening of Murder by Decree, which is a Sherlock Holmes movie from 1979 starring Christopher Plummer as Holmes and James Mason as his faithful Watson. Carter said he'd been asked to choose a film that had been influential in his work, and watching Murder by Decree, it was easy to see a lot of The X-Files in it (I'm less sure of Millenium, which I only watched sporadically).

Chris Carter introducing Murder by Decree at AFF.

Notable elements that connect Murder by Decree to The X-Files include the use of a wild-haired psychic (in Murder by Decree it was Donald Sutherland in an excess of eye makeup, in the last X-Files movie it was Billy Connolly) and the thread of government conspiracy that end in Holmes taking the Prime Minister (John Gielgud) to task. One could easily picture Mulder in a similar situation; in fact, I'm sure he has been in a similar situation any number of times.

As for the film itself, Murder by Decree is quite good, if clearly a product of its time. The music cues are pretty terrible, actually, and the misty-eyed look Holmes gets when thinking of poor Annie Crook does the Doyle character a disservice, but these are minor flaws. There is a nice dose of humor—the pea scene in particular—and solid affection between Holmes and Watson; chemistry is required for any two actors in those roles, and Plummer and Mason have it here. Mason as Watson is not quite a buffoon as in some Sherlock Holmes films; he stands somewhere in between the bumbling Watson of earlier stylings and the more assured Watson so popular today—in fact, I think it would make an interesting thesis to study the trajectory of Watsons over the decades, but that is something else entirely.

The story in Murder by Decree touches on Jack the Ripper and the then fad theory of a government cover-up involving the royal family. This theory is no longer timely but still makes a good story, and it's easy to see how Carter lifted that idea and laid it over the U.S. government and the FBI. What does the hero do when he realizes the very people he works for and with are the bad guys? What power does he have to change the situation? It makes for a good tale, the kind that is timeless.

Austin Film Festival: Day 3 (Awards Luncheon)

Well, if you weren't there, you didn't miss much as far as the food went. That's generally true of these kinds of things; any time a kitchen has to mass produce large quantities of food, the results tend to be questionable.

Held at the Austin Club, the Awards Luncheon handed out several "typewriters" (that's the shape of the award, which Frank Darabont found very cool) to filmmakers and writers under various banners. Maybe Noah Buschel is right about the whole "just go buy a camera" thing, considering he won Best Narrative Feature for Sparrows Dance. There were a lot of other winners, but I didn't have a pen to mark them on my program, and anyway, I'm still a little bitter that St. Peter in Chains couldn't find a home at AFF (there is no short film screenwriting category, so I tried it as an hour-long pilot, but it isn't really, so no surprise it didn't advance). ::shrug:: The AFF site will surely list all the winners.

Other honorees were Chris Carter (writer and producer of The X-Files among other things) for Outstanding Television Writer, who had his award presented to him by Robert Patrick; Eric Roth (Munich, Forrest Gump) for Distinguished Screenwriter, award presented by Dan Petrie, Jr.; and Frank Darabont (The Shawshank Redemption) for Extraordinary Contribution to Filmmaking, award presented by Jeffrey DeMunn. Weirdly enough, I was also really excited to be in the same room as Drew Struzan, whose artwork is fucking awesome.

Well, and Chris Carter. My first spec script (which was my final project as an undergrad) was an X-Files script. But it was a two-parter, and my advisor told me, though it was very good, it would never work as something to send out because it was two parts. I wouldn't write another script for over a decade, having gone into publishing instead. Though when I interned for a producer at FOX, I did look Carter up in the directory and called his office a couple times, only to hang up when someone answered.

Eric Roth mumbled his acceptance, and still made tears come to my eyes. I probably only caught half of what he said; if I'd heard more, I might have been openly weeping. [AFF later posted Roth's speech.]

And Frank Darabont is just such a buoyant character. As I said, he was mightily pleased with the "typewriter." Also, he sounds almost exactly like Alan Alda when he speaks.

Now I must find caffeine because the lunch only offered water and tea . . . There may have been coffee at some point, but I hate coffee. I'm on break until tonight's screening of Murder By Decree. Chris Carter is hosting it AND it has Sherlock Holmes? How could I hope to resist?

Austin Film Festival: Day 3 (Morning Panel)

I'm just going to take a minute to write about the panel I attended this morning, which was "Independent Production: Getting Started." I have a little bit of curiosity about the subject because, since St. Peter in Chains is really not feature material, I'm wondering if I'm going to have to make the movie myself (despite the fab feedback it got from the reader—and I'm pleased to note the script has a shot at being table read at Sundance next year, though I won't know for sure until January). But it's a short, so it's really festival fare, assuming I can ever get anyone interested in making it.

The panel was made up of Jeff Nichols, Amy Talkington, Jason Wehling, and Noah Buschel. From what I could gather, most of the decisions you make about doing an independent film have to do with how much creative control you want or need. And budget. They're related, in that if you start taking a bunch of money from someone (a producer, an investor), they're going to expect to have some say. So you have to be honest and upfront about what you plan to do—and about the fact that no one is going to make any money from the project. Indie films are largely a labor of love.

Noah Buschel was keen on the idea of going out and buying or renting a camera and just making the damn movie. Others said it might be better to get a producer on board, or at least formulate a plan. It was likened to building a house: you have an idea, and you get a blueprint, and then you realize it will cost too much to build it exactly the way you want it, so you start figuring out where you can cut back.

I recall the TV-movie producer I spoke to a while back saying if you can attach talent to the work, someone will be more likely to make it. But, he noted, it can be just as difficult, if not more so, to reach that talent. Still, at this panel it was mentioned that talking to casting directors—or their assistants—can be a way to do that.

As for money, Jeff Nichols went through all the ways he finagled cash from family members, and then all the ways he told his friends/crew he couldn't pay them. Kickstarter was mentioned, and grants, but the key is to have a plan, something to show people that makes the project seem real and serious, at least if you want money from "official" channels.

The panel didn't go deep into the legalities, but contracts, entertainment attorneys, and forming LLCs for each project were touched on.

Okay, time to get ready for this luncheon. See you there, AFFers.

Austin Film Festival: Day 2 (Panels)

This morning I got up early and went down to attend a panel I'd pre-registered for titled "The Hart Chart." Screenwriter James V. Hart (Dracula, Contact) has a unique way of charting the "heartbeat" of films by tracking the characters' ups and downs. It was actually pretty neat. I've taken my share of screenwriting courses, and to be honest I don't know that good writing can really be taught so much as absorbed, but this was at least far better than the typical three-act structure stuff instructors like to lob at screenwriting students. While Hart typically devotes an entire day to deconstructing Dracula for his chart, this morning we only had an hour and a half and were taking apart The Dark Knight Rises. (I haven't seen the movie yet, but now I know what happens and what to look for.)

Hart and [the far right side of] his chart.

After that, I had signed up for a Roundtable event titled "Breaking Into the Business." This was the place I'd most hoped to get the information I'm seeking, and while informative in some ways, it ultimately failed to get me where I want to be.

For the roundtable, there were, well, several round tables in the room with a few people seated at each. Panelists then circulated; each table was visited by three (like ghosts in A Christmas Carol—and they did it all in just over an hour, so take that, Christmas Past!) The visitors to my table were Lee Shipman, Will Staples, and Bryan Brucks. Shipman said the best path was to enter contests. Staples said you should get a job fetching coffee and work your way up. And Brucks . . . He said a lot of stuff, really, and was the closest thing to helpful short of agreeing to read something and/or sign me. (He invited me to a "Finding Representation" panel that he was going to be on, but it was for semifinalists in the AFF writing competition, and I couldn't find him to ask him to get them to let me in. You owe me a drink, Brucks!)

Honestly, Brucks said that you have to write what a manager or producer can sell, which is kind of common sense. Thing is, the stuff that wins competitions isn't always the stuff studios want because it's not what audiences pay to see. Like, comps love historical dramas or whatever. But how many historical dramas open in cinemas each year? I mean, really? He also said in some ways television is easier if only because it has a more regular path, but . . . I don't know. He asked what I wanted to do, and I said, "Television." Because I had always wanted to be a television writer. I like exploring characters at length the way TV shows allow. But at the same time, I'm not 100% convinced I'd be up for the whole writers' room life. There's something nice about writing a movie and then being done. I'll have to think about it.

Finally, I was also pre-registered for "Revisions with Terry Rossio." (He's known for writing Shrek and working on the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, among many other things.) Rossio's panel was very much like a writing class or lecture, and he also said one can't teach writing, though one can learn to write. I do feel like learning writing is an organic thing; it's not something you can break into steps. Well, you can and people have done, but the end result when writing this way tends to be stilted and, yes, formulaic.

What Rossio said that was pretty cool was: no matter how satisfied you are with something you've written, remain open to the idea that it can be made better. This seems like a small thing, but writers tend to get defensive about their "babies." Being open to [constructive] criticism is important. Of course, knowing when to tell someone to STFU is also good. ::shrug::

Rossio also promoted the idea of using developmental art as a pitching tool. It can be a mock trailer or comic book, but it needn't be so elaborate; the idea is to give them something visual to help communicate the idea of the story and get them excited about it. Writers are word people, after all, and studio folk think in pictures.

He then did some rewriting on a couple scenes submitted by conference attendees. He didn't get around to mine, though he said he'd do all of them eventually and e-mail them back. Well, I know it'll be a while before that happens, but I look forward to his notes.

I had the fun of being recognized by a couple different people today, too, which was sort of novel. Could my star be on the rise?

(Or maybe I'm just obnoxious enough that word is getting around. Hrm.)

Austin Film Festival: Day 1 (Panels)

Today the Austin Film Festival (AFF) began, with a shortened schedule of a handful of panels. First there were the opening remarks. Then, for lazy people like me who remained in the ballroom of Austin's Driskill Hotel, there came "A Conversation with Marti Noxon."

Barry Josephson & Marti Noxon

At this panel, Barry Josephson led Ms Noxon through a series of questions about her experiences as a screenwriter. It was as informative as any of these things ever are, which is to say only a little, because life experiences are unique. Many people can have things in common, true, and may have very similar stories to tell, but everyone experiences things differently because we are none of us exactly alike.

For example, Noxon said she fell into screenwriting by accident of the fact that she didn't have the money to direct a movie as her final college project at UC Santa Cruz. So her final project was a script by default. Later, she got "discovered" by Rick Rosenthal while waitressing (she saw him reading a script and asked him if it was any good, thus striking up a conversation).

Well, I "fell" into screenwriting in a similar way in that I needed to do something for my final project at UT (getting my degree in Radio-Television-Film) and for me, too, writing a script was the easiest thing. Alas, I have yet to be "discovered." But I'm hoping the good feedback from the Sundance reader on my  short film script will eventually pay off in some way. So I can say I have similar experiences to Noxon—even down to sharing her love of Spielberg—but am I going to be able to "break in" the same way?

One can tell with these panelists that they're willing to share their autobiographies but hesitant to encourage people to think doing what they did will work. So it's difficult to trust one is getting much out of the whole thing except an oddball collection of stories of how different people worked their ways into the industry. Inspiration perhaps?

The next panel I went to was "Breaking Onto the Scene" which had Evan Dougherty (Snow White and the Huntsman), John Swetnam, and Max Landis (Chronicle); they were later joined by Olivia Milch. It was more of the same, really, which is probably what I get for attending something called "Breaking Onto the Scene." After all, these people can only offer what they themselves have experienced, and perhaps a few insights into how the industry works—though they end up contradicting each other because each sees and feels differently about various things.

Taylor Cumbie (AFF panel moderator), Evan Dougherty,
John Swetnam, and Max Landis

In the end, I suppose the most reasonable hope of making attendance at such a festival count is in meeting people and networking. I'm not any big partygoer but I'll do my best to assert myself a bit. At the moment there is a lull in things, and I will be going out with friends, but I'll try to put in an appearance at the WGA gathering much later tonight.

More reports to come.

Television: Revolution, "Soul Train"

The formula here is set, and very much to the Lost template: use flashbacks for big reveals, at least one per episode, sometimes more. And have a character in current time also reveal something now and then. Like the fact there are twelve of these little power pendants for example.

I liked Lost and I like Revolution, but the reveals are no longer so revealing because we've come to expect them. Like dogs who sit and wait for their treats. Now I'm waiting for the show to up its game. Because really, after last night, we're back where we started: the militia has Danny and Charlie, Miles, and the gang must catch up to them and get him back.

An argument could be made, I suppose, for saying that it will only become more difficult now that Danny is in full custody at Militia HQ. It's an old trick: have your hero(s) do the same thing but make it harder than before. What I'm getting at is, thus far the show is solid but not especially inspired. I'm looking for the next big impact moment. The first was in the pilot, when we found out Miles had been militia. Then there have been a string of "falsies" like Maggie dying or whatever, stuff that's supposed to evoke some kind of feeling, but doesn't really. I'm particularly interested, though, in the history between Bass and Miles (and Ben and Rachel by extension), and I'm starting to suspect there really might be something going on with Aaron (Google Guy has a name!) . . . Or maybe they just haven't got around to his flashbacks yet. A lot of people to manage, after all; Even Lost took a while to get to everyone.

Some shows do progress more slowly than others, but it has to be done right and done well. Babylon 5 is the prime example for that. Even the least of the episodes saw advancement of the overall plot and/or character development. Right now the characters of Revolution are static, and we only get the sense they've developed by looking at their pasts. It might be time for the writers to consider letting these people move forward in more ways than one.

Places: Texas

I'm pretty familiar with parts of Texas, having lived in the Austin area for a good portion of my life and then outside of Dallas as well. I won't, however, say I "know" Texas because it is a very large state and I have not seen nearly all of it.

What I like most about Texas is the food. There is a lot of it, and a lot of different kinds, and most of it is good. That is to say, even the places that aren't the best are usually pretty decent, and often a lot better than stuff you'd find most anywhere else. There's Mexican, Tex-Mex, barbecue, "country" (i.e., chicken-fried steak and gravy), chili, steakhouses . . . And a large amount of Asian food, Caribbean, and so forth. And certainly seafood, though it's best to take your chances with that near the gulf rather than inland.

I am back in Texas for two reasons: to move the remainder of my belongings from Houston to San Francisco, and to attend the Austin Film Festival. This means my posting here and on PepperWords will be erratic (though I've scheduled some posts for PW that you won't want to miss). Once I'm home and have caught up on things like Revolution and Elementary, I promise I won't fail to post something here for you. And if I have time and opportunity, I'll also try to put a little AFF patter in the mix.

See you on the other side.

Books: L'il Gal Al and the Zombies of Amarillo by Christine Rains

Old West zombies. This free Smashwords story—it's not really long enough to be a book—is a nice idea but could use some refinement in execution. The core of the story is solid enough: Alma Sweeney makes money by protecting travelers from bandits through open expanses of the plains and prairies. She's a tough cookie, which is Rains's specialty. However, one wishes for a little more backstory here, and a little more showing instead of telling. Also, with the use of dialects, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish speakers; they all start to sound the same.

Meanwhile, having successfully brought a group of clients to Amarillo (Texas? Not clear, since Kansas is mentioned at one point), Alma's strict sense of reality is tested when she is confronted with zombies, both animal and human, that have been terrorizing the populace. Being a gutsy girl, she doesn't hesitate to take on the challenge. Here again, though, the story could have been made longer before rushing through to the conclusion and final reveal.

I wanted the yellow to mean something. I wanted the seamstress to play more of a role. All in all "L'il Gal Al" is a pretty good tale, but I guess I just wanted more of it. If you're curious to read it yourself, it's free in a variety of formats via Smashwords.

Television: Modern Family + Current Viewing Schedule

I have to say, all through last season I was on the fence about Modern Family. I had really enjoyed it previously, but then it lost some of its mojo. It wasn't making me laugh any more. But the two episodes that aired this week (which I only just caught up with via DVR) upped the game to the old levels. So it will stay on my roster for the time being.

So far, my season looks something like this:

Monday: Revolution
Tuesday: -
Wednesday: Modern Family
Thursday: The Office, 30 Rock, Elementary
Friday: -
Saturday: -
Sunday: -

Well, except I've been dabbling in Upstairs, Downstairs on Sunday nights. I also watch House Hunters as filler when I'm bored.

I had been watching Grimm for a while but lost track of it during the cross-country move. Didn't love it quite enough to invest the time in catching up.

I'm sticking out The Office because this is its final season. I started not really caring last season, and I find Andy Bernard truly obnoxious. But I do love seeing Catherine Tate on TV again.

30 Rock had begun to flag as well but has gone hilariously off the rails (on purpose) for its final episodes.

And I'm waiting for Smash to return. It's the show that I feel like I shouldn't enjoy as much as I do. (Is that the very definition of a "guilty pleasure"?)

What shows do you watch? Which are you close to dropping or which have you dropped already? And what are you eagerly awaiting?

Music: "Overjoyed" by Matchbox Twenty

My iPod has thrust this one forward a few times over the past couple days, and it's been growing on me. I have to say, I didn't much like it when I first heard it—or saw it, rather, since the first time I heard the song was when the band was promoting that little video for it, the one that was really just half a video played backward and then forward. I didn't like it. The video or the song, it's difficult to tell now because they were so entwined in my mind. I just walked away from the the whole experience with "Do. Not. Want."

And then I didn't hear the song again until a couple days ago because I listen to my iPod more than my satellite radio, and my iPod is on shuffle, and it sort of decides what I need to hear and when. It's actually remarkably good at this. I'm worried my iPhone and/or Siri is sentient in there . . . But I digress. The past two or three days, "Overjoyed" has been a favorite of my iPod, and without the stupid video, I find it to be a pretty good song. Is that weird?

Science has shown that we think in words and pictures. This is why we like charts and graphs and maps of the weather and such. When watching a video, our brains work to combine what we're hearing with what we're seeing. If there is some kind of dissonance, our minds either work to understand or reject it all. Which of these options our brains opt for depends largely on how important the outcome is to our survival, or whether we're motivated by anticipated rewards. "If I understand this chart, I will know how to do my work better, which means more money and a promotion." Since a Matchbox Twenty video had zero bearing on my existence, my brain rejected it and the song because, for me (and these things, as in "the arts," are very subjective) there was an internal discord. I understood the video, of course, but found it unpleasant for some reason. I'm sure it would take a psychologist to figure out why, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, later, in the absence of the visuals, when I was able to simply listen to the song—its music and lyrics—I enjoyed it. Go figure.

I'm sure this has worked in reverse, too. Some people hate a song until they see a cool video. Or love a song until they see a really awful video. Brains are funny places, and yet we all must live inside them to some extent. We are ever building them out, like some Winchester Mansion. Except some people don't, I guess. Some people's minds remain closed. I like to think I'm not one of these, and since I've found I can change my mind about a song, well, at least that's something. A tiny window thrown open. Fresh air let in.

Right Now I'm Reading . . .

The White Forest by Adam McOmber. It was sent to me as a review copy, and I do try to get around to those once in a while. I like this novel, which is set in Victorian London and features a narrator who has a strange "talent" for hearing the voices of inanimate objects. The central story is a mystery about the disappearance of the narrator's friend, who was involved in a cult-like organization. Overall the novel is pretty good but very dense; I can only read it in bite-sized chunks, which is why it is taking me so long. Well, that and I'm busy with other things as well.

One thing about The White Forest is that it skips around in time a bit, with the narrator remembering things and such. In many cases this is used to build tension around the core mystery, but sometimes the gimmick draws too much attention to itself. I still like the book, though. Really, really dislike the narrator's friend Maddy (not the one who is missing but another "friend" who isn't much of one at all, at least not thus far; maybe it's just I knew too many people like her back in the day).

Since I haven't yet finished the book, I can't say whether I'd recommend it, but so far I'd tell my friends who like supernatural mysteries that it's a good read.

And next on my stack is The Heart Broke In by James Meek, which I read a review of somewhere and found myself intrigued. I don't even remember now what it's about, but I do recall thinking while I read the review that it maybe reminded me of Nick Hornby's Juliet, Naked, which is one of my favorite books. We'll see how it goes. I'll have it with me on my Kindle as I travel next week.

Television: Revolution, "The Plague Dogs"

More Charlie flashbacks. Turns out she was just as annoying as a pre-teen as she is as a teenager. Also Maggie flashbacks, which seems strange given what happens later in the episode (spoiler alert!).

When I take a step back and look at Revolution as a whole, I have to admit it's flawed. The characters are more like positions than actual players, by which I mean you almost see the show as one of those locker room graphs. This is the hazard of plotting too much, of trying to prove you have a story and a mythology and are going somewhere with all this. Everyone plays a part, steadfast and direct, and in shorthand so that character development does not factor. That is the point of stereotypes, after all—to give the brain a shortcut so you can get on with things.

So while I like Revolution, I wish the characters would be a little more fleshed out. More three-dimensional. Lost did this well with both the flashbacks and the incidents on the island. Revolution appears to be attempting something similar but it's not quite working.

Okay, on to the spoiler. It seems strange to me to devote so many flashbacks to Maggie only to have her die. I suppose seeing her Skyping with her kids the night of the blackout, when paired with previous talks of the pictures on her phone, and then piling on her futile attempts to get back to England was all meant to build sympathy so that her death became more sad to an audience that hardly knew her. Or maybe it was just misdirection. Maybe we were supposed to think, "Well, with this much backstory, she's safe." But really, there wasn't room on the team for two strong women and a teenaged girl. Nora won out because she had more dramatic heft (that is, a history with Miles). Maggie had to go.

Interesting juxtaposition of The Wizard of Oz and tornado weather. Good use of the "no place like home" bit in Maggie's death scene. The writers of the show clearly have a love of literature. I just hope they don't start laying the metaphors on too thickly. Then the show becomes a kind of university lecture in disguise.

I'll continue to watch. I'm hungry for more Miles and Bass stuff, which continues to be the most interesting part of the show. And I'm still waiting for Google guy (seriously, does he have a name? I can't remember it) to have some flashbacks, too. We've heard a lot of his story from his own mouth but . . . I'm starting to wonder if any of it is true. Flashbacks as confirmation?

Who Am I?

It occurred to me some of my readers might like to know just who it is who writes this stuff. Well, you could go to my main site and read the FAQs. But if you're too lazy, here's the short form.

I'm M.

Just M.

Like James Bond's boss (only much younger than Dame Judi Dench).

Mmm, like a pause in thought or the taste of something delicious.

Em, like a dash. Or Dorothy's auntie.

Sometimes I look like this:

But not always.

I write. Stories (some have been published) and plays (some have been produced). I read. Other people's stories and plays. I watch television and movies and then write about those too. I've worked on film sets. I do these things for the love of doing them. I'm lucky enough to be able to do them.

I'm M. Mmm. Hmm.

Television: Upstairs, Downstairs

I started watching this by accident. (And I do mean the current one, not the show from the 1970s.) I switched the Apple TV back over to the cable box last Sunday evening, and Upstairs, Downstairs was starting. Next thing I knew, I was completely drawn in.

Now, I've only ever watched three episodes of Downton Abbey. I did that out of a sense of duty, and because so many of my friends love that program. It's the kind of thing I would normally really like. Maybe I wasn't in the right frame of mind at the time, or wasn't able to concentrate, and I should give it another shot. But whatever the reason, I was entirely able to get into Upstairs, Downstairs in a way I so far haven't been able to for Downton Abbey.

Last night I remembered Upstairs, Downstairs was airing and made a point to watch. It hadn't been a fluke; I liked it just as much this time, though the episodes had not been in sequence. (Apparently I'd seen the premiere episode and last night's was the first of Series 2 . . . But I read online that I had only missed two episodes since the first series only had three.) As opposed to being a full-on retread, this Upstairs, Downstairs is a kind of continuation from the 70s serial that was so popular. As things stand, Britain is now on the brink of World War II. Still, as they say, the more things change . . .

In any case, I can recommend it as very engaging and with just the right amount of humor. From what I understand it's no big hit or anything, but I consider it a solid show, perfect for a Sunday evening.

Movies: Moonrise Kingdom

Starring: Jared Gilman, Kara Hayward, Bruce Willis, Bill Murray, Edward Norton, Frances McDormand, Bob Balaban, Tilda Swinton, Jason Schwartzman, Harvey Keitel
Directed By: Wes Anderson
Written By: Wes Anderson, Roman Coppola
Indian Paintbrush, Focus Pictures
PG-13; 94 min
4.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________

In an attempt to wash the bad taste of The Master out of my mouth, I turned to another Anderson—one with a history of making me happy when it comes to filmgoing. And Moonrise Kingdom was up to the task. Not that it would have been difficult to do better than The Master, but the tone is pitch perfect here, placing Moonrise Kingdom squarely near the top of my favorite Wes Anderson films. I don't quite like it as much as The Royal Tenenbaums but I did enjoy it at least as much as The Life Aquatic and far more than The Darjeeling Limited. (I have yet to see Rushmore or Bottle Rocket; lax of me, I know.)

Okay, so now I've been up front about being a Wes Anderson fan. I even liked that credit card commercial from way back when. ("Are those my birds? I need those.") So to be fair, I was primed to like this movie. It was cute, colorful, and quirky—all the things one expects from Wes Anderson. It told a deceptively simple story in the kind of perfectly visual way only film can provide. I knocked off .25 of a star for predictability, and another .25 for the monotony of line delivery (by which I mean every actor spoke in the same flat tone), but really the art direction here is lovely, from the sets to the care taken with the book covers and costumes.

I think another reason I loved Moonrise Kingdom is it reminded me of one of my own favorite books from when I was a kid, a summer camp story titled August, Die She Must by Barbara Corcoran. There is a haunting tone to the movie that echos the tone of that book, at least for me. Something about passing a point of no return in one's childhood perhaps.

For those who don't know, Moonrise Kingdom is about two pre-teens who, in 1965, contrive to run away together. Except they live on an island, so there's only so far they can really go. Meanwhile, a hurricane is coming . . . As I said, deceptively simple, but the themes are far-reaching, from the sense of entrapment to that of the inevitable. And unlike The Master, one could happily deconstruct this film in any number of ways. Or just enjoy it whole. (As for The Master, who'd want to think about that movie so much or waste any more time on it than one already had by viewing it?)

So thank you, Wes Anderson, for saving my movie-going weekend.

Movies: The Master

Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams
Directed By: Paul Thomas Anderson
Written By: Paul Thomas Anderson
The Weinstein Company
R; 137 min
1 star (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________

It would have been zero stars except there were moments I was able to make fun of the film and make myself laugh. These moments proved to the be only entertainment value in the entire movie.

But wait: let me start by asking whether Joaquin Phoenix had a stroke I never heard about? That's probably insensitive of me, but I really want to know. Maybe they just injected him with a bunch of Botox. It hardly matters.

The setup: Phoenix plays Freddie Quell, a Navy officer who comes home from war and goes from job to job, suffering from episodes of angry violence tempered with drinking binges. When he stows away on The Master's (Hoffman) borrowed boat, Freddie is taken in—in more ways than one. The Master is head of The Cause, a Scientology-like movement in which people are "processed" (as opposed to "audited") to regress through past lives and free themselves from their invisible burdens. After any number of failures, Freddie finally has a breakthrough. And then he breaks away from The Master.

It isn't that I didn't understand the movie. Critics will say those that don't like The Master must not understand it, but I have a media and cultural studies degree in Radio-Television-Film, and I fucking well understood this movie. I could deconstruct it fifty ways from Tuesday, but no amount of taking it apart, looking at its themes, and poking it for metaphors could make me like it.

Here's what there is to understand: Freddie gets brought into The Cause. He comes out a better person. (He really does; this is proven by his calm interaction with his lost sweetheart's mother.) When he gets called back to The Master's side, like that dog in the old RCA ads, they try to tell him he's still sick and needs to get better. But at this point it's clear he's surpassed them. They're still sick. Freddie is better. And then Freddie goes on to use The Master's methods as a pick-up line. It all gets reduced to a lay.

Whatever. The Master was mostly trudging, except when unintentionally funny. Anderson showed his usual obsessive interest in anger and violence and a juvenile, ogling interest in sex and farting. The acting was good (given the material they had to work with) but the directing and/or cinematography was lazy. And I was subjected to way more of Philip Seymour Hoffman's singing than I ever wanted or needed to be. Also a lot of ugly naked people. Mostly women. I suppose Anderson is not brave enough to show me a hot naked guy for a change.

Look, I loved Magnolia, and I'm one of the only people on the planet who seemed to like Punch-Drunk Love. There Will Be Blood was okay, too, though I didn't like it as much as a lot of people. But The Master is just . . . Not good. It's total Oscar fodder; I'm guessing we'll see it get some nominations, but I never want to see it again. Ever. I go to movies to enjoy myself, after all, and to be entertained. If there's something edifying in the experience, that's fine. But when you're trying to hit me over the head with your supposedly deep and meaningful thoughts and ideas, and then fail to entertain or engage me at all besides, well you have earned an epic fail.

Television: Elementary, "While You Were Sleeping"

Better than the pilot, despite the clichéd episode title.

Even though I felt the show telegraphed a lot of the plot twists, what I like about Elementary as opposed to Sherlock is that the stories are original instead of updates of Doyle's. That's not to say Sherlock doesn't do a brilliant job with their take, but for those who know Doyle, it does mean we're not left in much suspense about what will happen. With Elementary, the stories are all new. What they do need is to be a little less predictable. Tricky when writing a procedural, I'll admit, but we'll see where things go.

I also enjoy Jonny Lee Miller's version of Holmes in which he's upped the impulsive aspect of the character. His twitchiness befits not only a recovering addict but Holmes in whole, who was known to be restless except when on cocaine (not an option for this Holmes . . . yet . . .). In particular, in last night's episode when he set the violin on fire, my initial thought was !!! But when I thought it over, yes, Doyle's Holmes might have done the same when in a fit of pique.

Also, I at first thought it was strange that Holmes and Watson kept calling each other by their surnames, but after consideration this also seems right; they are not yet really friends and each has an interest in keeping some distance for personal reasons. (Though if I recall rightly, Watson did call him Sherlock at some point last night? When calling to get his attention? Or was that someone else?)

All told the episode was solid and left me looking forward to the next one. Alas, we must wait two weeks. And I'll be at the Austin Film Festival when the next episode airs, so I'll be playing catch-up. Why is it, no matter if it's books, television, or film, Sherlock Holmes is always leaving us waiting and wanting more?

Movies: Who Wants to Make Mine?

I have a short film script based on my novella "St. Peter in Chains." My big wish is to see it produced. The novella itself has gotten decent reviews, and today I received some really encouraging feedback on the script itself. I'm willing to make changes as necessary. So if anyone out there is looking to invest in the kind of film that would probably do well at festivals, the kind of thing actors love to sink their teeth into . . . Drop me a note. Or look for me at the Austin Film Festival in a couple weeks.

Television: Revolution, "No Quarter"

Much better than last week's episode, in part because Charlie's earnestness was kept to a minimum and the flashbacks were about Miles and "Bass" (Monroe). Their story is so much more interesting than anything Charlie or her parents could offer . . . Though there's a chance Charlie's dad has something going on that we've yet to see.

It's true that Miles appears to be a kind of Standee version of the good-at-heart type who made some bad choices. Even his belt, which he wears like Han Solo or Robin Hood, gives off this devil-may-care (but I really do care, deep down) vibe. Still, Billy Burke brings all he has to the role, making it palatable and playable. In particular, I enjoyed his Stephen King references. Clearly Miles is a reader . . . of at least one author/genre.

Charlie really is the low point of the show. I can't decide if it's the way she's written (so zealous about family and doing the right thing; she has no depth or dimension aside from the fabricated need to protect and help, especially her brother, but really all of mankind), or if she's badly acted, or both. Someone needs to tone her down or scale her back or give her some real personality, because as it stands she's a kind of an annoying terrier nipping at her uncle Miles's heels. Maybe there will be a learning curve for her. Maybe this adventure is her country mouse learning about the real world. But right now it's just bleh.

Nice to see Danny do something for himself there, though. So far he's been mostly milquetoast, but he upped his game slightly last night.

Google guy and Maggie are doing their own thing, but though the time devoted to them was short, it was used well.

And who else enjoyed seeing Jacob from Lost back on the small screen? The potential triumvirate of him, Miles, and Monroe—their past and rise to power—has my attention more than anything else on the show.

So far, so good. I'll continue to watch despite Charlie. For now.

Books: You Are Not So Smart

In the chapter on Dunbar's Number, McRaney posits (based on scientific evidence, natch) that people can only maintain true relationships with about 150 people at any given time in their lives—which explains perfectly why I have only 149 Facebook friends.


David McRaney
Gotham Books, 2011
320 pages
Hardbound
_______________________________________



You Are Not So Smart is really a collection of essays about the way we trick ourselves psychologically into believing things that are not true. Everyone does it. No one is exempt. We are all delusional, and the more you argue you aren't, the more you probably are.

It's a defense mechanism. It's evolutionary throwback. It's your brain creating shortcuts so you don't have to expend unnecessary time and energy on less important things. Whatever the reason(s), here McRaney is serving up the truth and citing the experiments to prove it.

A lot of this book was already known and familiar to me because I took a fair amount of psychology in college, and because I continue to be interested enough to read regular articles on scientific findings. (And to read books like You Are Not So Smart, which is evidently based on a blog, though the site appears to go un-updated for long periods of time.) I already knew about how you falsify your own memories, and about the bystander effect, and confirmation bias. I'm even able to point out times when I've been subject to any of these. (After all, once a person has it in their heads that a certain television writer and producer hates women, s/he's going to find many signs and symptoms of his misogyny in his work, is s/he not? I'm winking at you, Steven Moffat.)

Still, knowing what I know doesn't reduce the pleasure in reading about it. Maybe that's another kind of confirmation bias; reading what I already know allows me to feel as smart as, or maybe even smarter than, the author. I don't know. It becomes a rabbit hole of introspection if you think about it too long or too hard.

The truth is, McRaney's book is engaging and well written. It explains each bias and fallacy in a clear way, with good examples. One might be tempted to navel gaze after the fact, however. So be careful when consuming all this information.

Television: Doctor Who, Season 7 (so far)

Okay, so there have been five episodes thus far this season, one for each Saturday in September. And now we must wait for the Christmas special and then whatever comes in the late winter or spring. I'm kind of fine with that. I have an odd lack of impatience at this point, having become used to the long hiatus gracing all things Steven Moffat.

As a whole, these episodes have been largely uneven in tone and texture. The Doctor, as portrayed by Matt Smith, has been especially off with these strange bouts of rage that (a) don't suit this particular Doctor, and (b) don't suit this actor, either. Matt Smith =/= intimidating in any way, so to believe others would find his ire a deterrent is difficult. Meanwhile, Amy and Rory had already begun to peter out well before the Angels took Manhattan and forced them off the stage.

I suppose the big to-do is over how The Doctor has managed to wipe his slate clean by deleting himself from all, what, databases? Human memory? It's not 100% clear, though it smacks of Moffat trying to be clever with the show's title while simultaneously giving himself a new starting point.

Not that he's reinventing the wheel or anything. "The Angels Take Manhattan" borrowed from Sherlock's "The Reichenbach Fall" by utilizing jumping off a building as the climactic endgame and the discovery of our hero(s) still being alive in a cemetery—even if only for a few minutes. I've argued before about how Moffat steals from himself quite liberally, but the redundancy is starting to be a bit of a drag. (You can argue that Moffat didn't write "Reichenbach," but he's still the producer, and if you don't think a man like that isn't in control of the scripts, you're delusional.)

The misogyny in "Angels" bothered me a bit, too. Women already have enough aimed at them regarding aging and body consciousness without a troll like Moffat adding his two cents. And now The Doctor is off to get himself a cute, young, bubbly new sidekick? We were better off—and so was The Doctor—when the companions were mature women like Donna, or even Martha, who was somewhat young but very level-headed. But maybe the show is hunting for a younger audience.

As for the other episodes so far this season, well, some were okay . . . "The Power of Three" was fun but could have played on the Three's Company vibe a bit more. "Dinosaurs on a Spaceship" was cute. I was underwhelmed by "Asylum of the Daleks" as the opener, but it wasn't the worst. "A Town Called Mercy," though? That one was pretty awful. Again with the unbelievability as The Doctor gets angry. Am I supposed to think he's conflicted and has a dark side? Meh. Smith isn't able to pull it off. Better he stick to manic and occasionally sweet or sentimental. (But only occasionally. Like seriously, not very often, because even then he seems to be stretching his range.)

Now we wait for Christmas, and to see if The Doctor gets everything on his growing wish list. One new companion now on backorder!

Concert Review: Train at UC Berkeley's Greek Theatre

Last night I took the train (well, BART) to Train. They played at UC Berkeley's Greek Theatre, an open-air venue modeled on the ancient Greek amphitheaters.

I was lucky enough to have a front-row seat, which affords many pros such as a good view that is usually uninterrupted. The con of such a seat is the fact that people do try to crowd the stage and so sometimes stand in front of you, but the event crew was pretty good about clearing them regularly.

The first act was Andy Grammer, whose "Fine By Me" was one of radio's summer staples. His new single "Miss Me" isn't bad, either, and he did a solid job of attempting to get the crowd worked up for the coming acts. I've said it before: it's a hard job being the opening act because most of the seats are still empty, which can seem a bit disheartening. Grammer didn't let it get him down, though, so kudos to him.

After that, the somewhat better known Mat Kearney took the stage. His set was about twice as long as Grammer's; he has at least twice as many recognizable songs, after all. Kearney, too, turned in a solid and satisfying set and appeared to genuinely enjoy himself. By this point the amphitheater was pretty full—Train had sold the place out.

The main draw hit the stage just shy of 9:00 p.m. to much rejoicing from their "hometown groupies." Truth be told, the audience was a wide mix of people who remember Train from their college days (I count among these) and the new teeny-boppers who like that song about all the ways the girlfriend dies. (I'll admit it's a catchy song, and was a good choice as the opening number.)

Now, I saw Train in August 2011, back up in Massachusetts, when "Save Me, San Francisco" was their big hit. I never thought at that point the next time I'd see the band I'd be in San Francisco. Something surreal about that.

I was a little sad that, due to sheer volume, Train reduced some of their older songs to a medley. "Free" and "She's On Fire" were therefore shortened and blended into a number of other songs.

Train at Berkeley, 28 September 2012

In truth, Train played a relatively short set, ending around 10:30 or so (including encore). But they were nonetheless crowd pleasing, hitting all the highlights of their current hits and old favorites. For a lot of the older songs, they hardly had to sing at all because the audience did most of the work for them. (This turned out to be a good thing when, at one point in the show, singer Pat Monahan had trouble with his mic.)

Both times I've seen Train play, they've shown a knack for fun with a touch of spectacle that leaves fans happy at the end. For the money, then, I'd say they are one of the best acts to see live. Well worth the train ride, the walk, and the chill September air when you can go home with a warm feeling.

Television: Elementary, "Pilot"

All right, I'll admit by the time the title card came up, I wasn't sold. It was a slow starter. And in a day and age when things need to happen quickly to get and keep people's attention, Elementary didn't really do that out of the gate.

But I stuck it out, and I'm glad I did. The show did a nice job of making the unease between Holmes (played by Jonny Lee Miller) and Watson (Lucy Liu) tangible. There was a good progression of character interaction as the relationship began to take root, so that by the end the sense of a kind of truce and/or budding friendship was believable.

If you didn't watch, let me explain this Holmes-in-New-York setup: Sherlock Holmes is a recovering drug addict who has relocated from London to New York. His daddy holds the purse strings, so Holmes must labor under Dad's directive that he have a live-in "sober companion" to keep an eye on him. Enter Watson as said companion. The tension, then, is understandable. Holmes has a certain amount of resentment at having to be babysat, and Watson doesn't especially love her job. (Turns out she used to be a surgeon but malpractice forced her out.)

The episode itself was a relatively textbook display of television procedural; unlike Sherlock, Elementary does not look to adapt Doyle's stories to more modern life. Therefore, the plotline itself was the least interesting bit of the show. Watching JLM throw a couple temper tantrums? That was pretty good.

This Holmes differs quite widely from that on Sherlock in that he displays a tad more ability to sympathize with other people, or at least with Watson. He apologizes for upsetting her, he admits faults and lies. This is not out of character from Doyle's Holmes, who often had cause to apologize to his faithful Watson, and who was known to throw tantrums at times himself. Too, JLM's Holmes is made angry by the villain—the crime ignites his ire—which is also similar to Doyle's creation, who found a savvy criminal very satisfying in one light but the abuses perpetrated deeply infuriating. He was a consulting detective not only for the fun of it, but because he liked to be on the side of right and to use his talents on its behalf.

Certainly it was important to CBS that Elementary be crafted with a Holmes that its audience would find, if quirky, ultimately sympathetic and likable. This is the reason for pulling those particular traits of Doyle's creation to the fore.

Elementary has also sprinkled some ongoing mystery into the mix, as Holmes refuses to tell Watson what happened to him in London. She deduces it has to do with a woman (Irene Adler perhaps?), but that is all viewers have been allowed to know for now.

All told, by the end of the episode I was ready to say I would continue watching, at least for now. They'll need to step up the actual plots and secondary characters, though, to hold me.

Television: Elementary v. Sherlock (Pre-Viewing Discussion)

Tonight Elementary will premiere on CBS. This is the show with a modern Sherlock Holmes (played by Jonny Lee Miller) in New York. There have already been, of course, many comparisons to BBC One's Sherlock, which is another modern Holmes (though set in his natural habitat of London). But I think, if not apples-to-oranges, this is more like red apples versus green.

CBS has secured its spot in the network hierarchy by offering procedurals with compelling central characters, and Elementary shows all the hallmarks of being exactly one of these kinds of shows. That's the audience Elementary is going for here, a known—and large—quantity. And by all accounts, the formula has been solidly adapted, including the gender switch of Watson, who in this take is played by Lucy Liu. CBS viewers are pretty used to core male/female teams. Coming out of upfronts, Elementary had a lot of buzz around it, and around the chemistry between the leads. It's poised to do well in its time slot, and to gather the usual strong and stable CBS audience.

As for fans of Sherlock, well, it seems to me they've already made the decision to dislike Elementary by dint of the fact they seem to think it treads on Sherlock's toes. But Elementary wasn't made for them. It's an entirely different sensibility, and I think it will be possible to enjoy both shows if one keeps an open mind and doesn't expect the same things from each. Because, aside from the use of Doyle's characters, they are not nearly the same.

I like Sherlock, and what's more I like Sherlock Holmes. I am open to a wide range of interpretations of him. Benedict Cumberbatch has done well in the BBC role, and I think JLM can carve out his own space on CBS. (As an aside: Cumberbatch and JLM played opposite one another in Frankenstein at the National Theatre, switching between the roles of Victor Frankenstein and his Creature, so I've seen them do the same roles very differently—and yet be equally successful.) What Elementary especially has going for it over Sherlock is that there will be more than three episodes every 18 months or so, its regular schedule allowing for audiences to find it easily instead of wondering, "When is that show coming back?" or "Is that show ever coming back?" (Also, one hopes, Elementary is recorded at a volume viewers can hear, and perhaps JLM's Sherlock won't talk so fast some people need their closed captioning, a repeated fuss I've heard from various Sherlock viewers.)

I'm looking forward to trying Elementary tonight. After it airs, you'll be able to find my thoughts on the show posted here. (Meanwhile, go read about why Sherlock didn't win any Emmys). In any case, I think there's plenty of room on the small screen for more than one Holmes. He was a man of many facets; it's only fair he be showcased in as many different ways. There are red apples and green apples in the world. Some people only like one or the other, but some people know that each has its uses, depending on the recipe.

Television: Revolution, "Chained Heat"

Straight out, Billy Burke is the best thing about this show. I get the sense the Google guy might be fun and interesting too, if they'd give him more to do. It's clear, though, that the writers' abilities to create compelling female characters is somewhat challenged. Charlie is irritating and over-earnest. Maggie . . . I can't figure out, but so far I haven't been swayed to try very hard, either. Nora came across as a stereotype. And Rachel? Grace? ::shrug::

Too, the youngsters so far have little draw. Besides Charlie, I don't much care about Danny or Nate, either. Especially Nate, who so far is a cardboard cutout for "conflicted."

But I do want to know more about Monroe and his relationship to Miles. And Captain Neville (played so superbly by Giancarlo Esposito) is mesmerizing every time he's on screen.

I can't say I found "Chained Heat" to be nearly as interesting as the pilot. I was not as engaged. I'm hoping it was a sophomore slump, since there is a lot of potential here. I'm waiting for flashbacks from characters other than Charlie, who is one of the least interesting. If she's supposed to be central and sympathetic, they've missed the mark with that particular crossbow shot. Her nagging makes me wish Miles would run her through with his sabre.

I did get Torchwood flashbacks with the whole, "Don't let go of your brother's hand" thing. There's some Firefly and Hunger Games stuff going on in all this as well. With the right blend, Revolution could be amazing. But I don't think the mixture is quite right yet. We'll see.

Books: Stuff I've Written

For those who may be curious, I do have e-books out there. You can find them on my official site PepperWords, but I'm also going to list them here for you in order of publication.

• "St. Peter in Chains"—A novella about what happens when a British intelligence agent allows love to compromise his focus. I'd consider it a character study with a hint of espionage, or as I've previously called it: Mad Men meets John le Carré
• "Sherlock Holmes and the Mystery of the Last Line"—My most popular title, a Holmes story in the Doyle style.
• Star Signs Operating Manual—A little something different from my usual, this is an astrology book about how to handle people of various signs.
• "Sherlock Holmes and the Adventure of Ichabod Reed"—The prequel to "Last Line." Yet another Doyle-ish tale.

These are all available on Amazon Kindle; "Last Line" can also be found on Smashwords.

The Emmys: Why Sherlock Didn't Win

All right, since you've been asking. I could go the easy route and say simply that the competition was stiff, but truthfully, when taken as a whole within its category, most of the other stuff was simply better. I want to be clear here: Sherlock is a fan and critical favorite, but that doesn't always translate to ATAS and/or Emmy gold. And being asked to take A Scandal in Belgravia as a made-for-television movie didn't help things. It doesn't stand well on its own. Look at the first 15 to 20 minutes, which requires both an understanding of Holmes canon and the previous series (season) to fully comprehend and enjoy.

One could argue that, even though the Academy was only voting on the one episode (movie?), they are not entirely able to separate that from their conception of the series as a whole. Psychologically speaking. But it is possible to sit down and watch just the one episode with a completely critical eye. And that's what Academy voters were told to do. Just because they might like it (i.e., find it entertaining) doesn't mean they'll vote it as best.

Here are some of the ways Scandal fell down. 1. Steven Moffat beats viewers over the head with this idea that he's very clever. From the cutesy ringtone on Moriarty's phone to the cutting back and forth as Sherlock and Irene "prepare for battle" . . . Honestly, it's exhausting to see him trying so hard. 2. Benedict Cumberbatch—who is a fine actor, at least some of the time—ran into some problems in this episode: (a) being unable to fake playing the violin very well, (b) spending a good deal of the episode moping and wandering for what seemed like no very good reason, and (c) that tacky scene in which he playacted at being a priest, but which really just came off as bad acting of bad acting. 3. Those who enjoyed the original Irene Adler from Doyle's story found this take to be a shade off, seeing that she doesn't win in the end after all. In fact, Sherlock has to save her? Really? (Moffat's track record in writing and depicting women has been a knot of discussion, and Scandal dragged it all out again.) 4. And this is more general: British and American sensibilities are different. And Sherlock as a character, who goes between bouts of quietude and mania . . . At best he appears bipolar (something viewers understand), but at worst the actor simply seems inconsistent in his efforts. Remember that not everyone watching the show knows Doyle's original, and a good program won't require them to in order to enjoy and connect with the characters as they're currently written and portrayed. I get the sense that during a chunk of Scandal, viewers were asking, "WTF? Why is he acting that way? What's his problem exactly?"

Finally, with all the talk of a new British invasion on American television, it's possible that Academy voters closed ranks to safeguard their side of the industry, thereby shutting out a lot of the British programs.

Downton does better on this side of the pond because (a) Americans can kind of understand WWI Britain in a way we don't understand—and are sometimes even threatened by—modern Britain, and (b) it's quite simply written with more finesse. I do think Sherlock might have had a chance if one of the other episodes had been on offer. Hounds could have stood alone quite neatly, and Benedict had that lovely scene beside the fire in that one which would have showcased his work better.

Rumor has it the third series of Sherlock begins filming this coming January March, and that it will probably be the final series as well. Last shot at Emmy gold for that group, then. Better make it count.

Television: Parade's End (Episode 5/5)

How awful.

It would have been so much better if Christopher had died in the war. I really don't think it was right to reward Valentine's ridiculous, school-girl idea of love by getting to be Christopher's mistress at the end of it all. I realize Sylvia was spiteful, but she had a right to be in my mind. And the fact that Christopher gets to have his cake and eat it too? Just goes to show the gender bias. Every man wants a happy-go-lucky little young thing that fawns over him. None want to take on the work that is required to handle a real woman. Sylvia ends up being slandered, used, and tossed aside. Too bad since Rebecca Hall was the one bright spot, the actress seeming to be the only one of the entire cast who knew what she was doing and why; even though her character was not meant to be sympathetic (at least, I'm sure she wasn't, in order to cop the "happily ever after" for Christopher and Val), Hall's fantastic turn made Sylvia compelling and sympathetic nonetheless, leaving Christopher's and Val's actions—already wrong, even if you expect me to believe their love was "true"—to look downright inhumane. Look, I'm no moralizer, but this just turned my stomach.

In the end, I hated the whole thing. The way it finished out made me sorry I wasted my time on it.

Books: The Happiness Advantage, Part IV

Finished! And nothing much to add, either. Achor doesn't have much to offer on ways to expand one's social networks, his book operating on the assumption most people work in offices and have co-workers and families to interact with. Rather short-sighted of him, I feel. No one is an island, sure, but some of us are more peninsular than others.

The last bit of the book is dedicated to reminding readers that all Achor's principles work together to make a happier you, and a happier you makes a happier world. Tra la la. Seriously, it's all about how when you're more positive, studies show that positivity trickles down on average three degrees from you (not as far as Kevin Bacon, but still), and so the ripple effect makes not only you happier, but those closest to you, and then because they're happier . . . You get the idea. IT ALL BEGINS WITH YOU.

Um, okay.

I'm doing the writing-three-good-things-per-day exercise, but I can't really tell if anything is coming of it. I have noticed it makes me look for good things throughout the day, which was kind of the point: to redirect one's focus from the negative to the positive. But I still have and see my share of less-than-great things. So my happy-go-lucky is being tempered a bit. ::shrug::

I'm also wondering if writing a step-by-step plan for achieving some of my goals might help. Although figuring out how to go about achieving each step (like finding a producer) may be more difficult. Sigh.

Achor reflects at one point in his book that a lot of the things he suggests seem like common sense. And yet common sense does not always translate into common action. It's easy to say, "Yes, these are things I should do." It's less easy to actually make a habit of doing them. I will continue to try. If there is a chance of being happier, it's worth some effort.

Books: The Happiness Advantage, Part III

Nope, I'm still not done with this book (but I'm close). I'm not going to go into any real discussion or argument about how having too many choices is like having too much on your plate—it slows down your work and wears down your willpower. Distractions, too, are like choices: I can choose to work or I can choose to check Facebook. Which is easier? Which am I more likely to do? (Achor talks about how making it harder to distract yourself goes a long way . . . Once Facebook is no longer the path of least resistance, you're not as likely to keep looking for new status updates.) No arguments from me on any of this. I live it every day.

What I don't live every day are the social interactions Achor promotes as part of productivity and overall well-being. I work from home, in a solitary office, in a solitary business (writing). I am aware I need more friends. I am aware I need to get out more. Making that happen—making those connections—is the difficult bit.

I don't disagree with the science that suggests people with strong social support networks are happier, more productive, and even live longer. I don't doubt it. And I haven't finished the chapter yet, so maybe Achor will eventually give me tips on, well, how to make friends? In a world filled with online and superficial interactions, deep bonds can be hard to form.

Achor points out that interactions needn't be deep to be beneficial. And I know this is true, too, because I know the high I get when I have even a short, pleasant conversation with someone, and how good I feel when I help a tourist find his or her way. (I'll admit I'm selfish; I do nice things because it makes me feel good to do them.) Still, in times of crisis, you cannot expect your online friends to do much for you. Nor are the tourists or acquaintances going to be there to help.

I do have friends and family. But most of them are the kind that can barely be counted on to check their e-mails, much less come to the rescue when you need someone. In fact, I tend to be the rescuer in a lot of situations. Something goes wrong and suddenly I am remembered! My own efficiency and self-sufficiency has begun to work against me.

In order to achieve my goals, certainly, I must learn to forge these connections. I want to see my novella turned into a short, independent movie. How to do that? Well, first I need people. A producer willing to back it, a crew, actors . . . So I do understand the need for a network. I've tried online, but can't say I've seen much benefit. Yet. Either I'm doing it wrong, or sites like Stage 32 really do just consist of a lot of people yelling into a void with no one really listening.

I'll keep trying. And I'll keep reading and see if Achor has any more suggestions.

Books: The Happiness Advantage, Part II

(You can find Part I here.)

No, I'm still not done with this book, but I've read some more of it and have some more thoughts.

I'm pleased to be able to say, I have found one suggestion of Achor's that I'm giving a try. He says one way to be happier in one's life and career is to re-train your mind to look for the positive instead of the negative. Now, I like to think I see things pretty clearly, but I know there are times I'm seeing more bad than good in my world, so I'm going to follow Achor's recommendation that I write down three good things that happen each day. They don't have to be huge things, just three upbeat moments or small blessings or whatever. The idea is eventually your mind starts looking for these good things, and your outlook in general becomes rosier. I started yesterday, so we'll see what happens.

Still, I continue not to be 100% sold on some of the things I'm reading. It's not that I doubt the science or dispute what Achor is saying; I'm just not entirely clear how or if it applies to my situation. Take, for example, the whole learned helplessness discussion. I will readily admit I have learned helplessness in my career. But it hasn't been for lack of trying or optimism. I have written and submitted and been rejected. I have rewritten and edited and submitted and been rejected. I have put aside those stories and scripts and tried new ideas, only to be rejected. And I've rewritten those . . . and been rejected. I've taken things step by step, always with the idea that somewhere out there is the right fit for my work, or that with a little more polish my writing will find its place, but . . . At what point, Achor, does one throw in the towel? Or, to use his falling metaphor from the book, at what point is a person too tired and bruised to get up again?

It's frustrating to basically be told in a roundabout way to "just keep trying." And I don't think I've been unreasonably optimistic, either, which is one thing Achor warns against. It's sort of the whole: "You'll never succeed if you don't try, BUT . . . don't get your hopes up too high, either" argument. Thanks there, coach, but I didn't really need a book to tell me that.

I haven't been completely unsuccessful, of course; I've had plays produced and published, and I've had stories and poems published, and I've had moderate success with self-publishing. And I am able to look at these as stepping stones. I'm just not clear on how much water I still have to cross, and these rocks are slippery.

Achor goes on to talk about how feeling in control goes a long way toward reducing stress and achieving success in our goals. (This is where I currently am in the book, the discussion of the Zorro Circle.) This, too, is shaky ground for me. I do feel in control of my work itself—my output, how good it is, my talent in general (assuming I have any)—but in order for me to succeed on the level I most desire to succeed, well, others have control of that: publishers, producers, the people who can "make it happen." Again, I've done it for myself to an extent by self-publishing some of my work, but until I have enough money to make my own movie or can bribe a television showrunner to take me in . . . (And don't think I haven't thought about it.) I do understand it's all about networking and connections, and I've tried that too, but you'd be surprised how few people are interested in a nobody. Even the other nobodies aren't too keen. I think the idea is we're supposed to help each other, but a lot of us creative types can be flaky, and then again a lot of us just don't know where to start. Anyway, the upshot of all this is: it's hard to feel in control when a lot of what you do and/or whether or not you'll get to do it rests in others' hands. I'll keep chipping away, like so many other independent writers, but I'm really not sure how much success I can hope to have. And that's not me being pessimistic. That's reality.

We'll see what happens when I attend the Austin Film Festival next month and the San Francisco Writers Conference next February. These will be my first major events, my first real opportunities to network in person as opposed to online.

More to come as I continue to read.

Music Video: "Our Song" by Matchbox Twenty

Okay, quick: my favorite band? I know, I know, there's no accounting for taste, but I've loved these guys for forever, and now they've released an "official" video for one of my favorite songs off the new album (North, it's #1 if you hadn't heard).



The song is catchy, and the video is cute, even if it is only a collection of recording room snippets. (Not much to do with the song, really, but whatever.) I like having proof that I'm not the only person in the world who lies around on the floor periodically; people always poke fun at me for that, but see! Rob does it too! Maybe it's an Aquarian thing, or a grounding issue. But sometimes I'm just like, I need to lie down. Right here will do. (The flip side of this is climbing on shit for no real reason, which I've also been known to do.)

The other song I really like on North is "How Long?" . . . I have to say, even though Matchbox Twenty is my favorite band, or one of my favorites, I haven't even heard the whole album yet. Bad of me, I realize. But I haven't had the chance to just settle in and listen, so I'm only getting what my iPod throws out on shuffle. I promise, boys, I'll get around to it. Eventually.

But first, I just need to lie down. Right here under the desk will be fine.

Movies: The Five-Year Engagement

Starring: Jason Segel, Emily Blunt
Directed By: Nicholas Stoller
Written By: Jason Segel, Nicholas Stoller
Universal Pictures
R; 124 min
3.75 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________

A movie about doughnuts!

(If you don't know why I'm excited, you clearly haven't read my reviews of Parade's End.)

In truth, this little romantic comedy is fairly routine. Tom (Segel) and Violet (Blunt) get engaged a year after they first meet. But the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune conspire to prevent them from planning their wedding. Things really begin to fall apart when Violet gets accepted to a Ph.D. program . . . in Michigan, a far cry from San Francisco. Like a good fiancé, Tom agrees to leave his solid job as a sous chef in a popular restaurant for this seemingly temporary, two-year limbo in the frozen wasteland that is Michigan. But he fails to find a job as a chef, having to settle for making sandwiches at a local deli instead.

Where, you ask, are the doughnuts? Well, they are an integral part of Violet's work in the psychology program, where the ongoing experiment is designed to test participants' will power by leaving them in a room with stale, day-old doughnuts. The participants are told fresh doughnuts will be coming in 20 minutes. Will the subjects wait? Or go for old pastries?

The whole thing becomes a metaphor for Tom's and Violet's relationship. Are you happy with what you have, or do you hold out for something better?

In the way of romantic comedies, things get worse before they get better. The Five-Year Engagement is longer than most rom-coms, but that's because it fully explores the relationship. More than a typical "funny honey" flick, this one has a realism to it uncommon to current, more popular entries into the genre. It resonated more with me because it spoke to my experience. It wasn't laugh-out-loud funny, no, but it was sweet and true. I only docked it some star points for lack of laughs.

Books: The Happiness Advantage, Part I

Shawn Achor
Crown Business, 2010
256 pages
Hardbound
_______________________________________

Okay, I'm going to cover this book in stages (parts) because I'm having lots of thoughts about it as I'm reading, and I don't want to try and save it all up for one big blast. That would be unhealthy, I think. So I'm going to ease the valve open and let some steam out.

Let's first talk about the premise of this book. It's not terribly groundbreaking. The fundamental idea is that being happy is an element of success—as opposed to the usual idea that being successful is what will make people happy. Even just a little bit of common sense makes this notion passable; after all, if success made people happy, they'd only need to be successful in one thing, one time, to have a lifetime of good feelings. But no. Being successful in something usually results in yet another goal to be achieved. Soon life becomes a long series of "if only" and "when" and the happiness never happens because, in this mindset at least, there is no final destination.

Fair enough. Achor spends a number of pages backing all this up with scientific studies to prove his point, but they're not really necessary to convince the reader. We get it. It's not such a revolutionary idea.

Achor also spends a lot of time telling anecdotes about his traveling around giving talks all over the world. The reader doesn't really need these either. In fact, so far I've spent a lot of my reading time thinking, Get to the point. A lot of the book (so far) is just so much padding.

Having established that positivity aids in success, performance, productivity, etc., Achor does finally suggest ways to be more positive. These turn out not to be any more mind blowing than his thesis. He lists things like meditation and exercise, getting away from your desk every so often (take a walk, chat up a co-worker), or taking time to view a funny online video. In Achor's big picture, these little mood boosters, if done regularly to the point of becoming habit, will increase positivity in increments and therefore bring the benefits of success. One simply needs to re-train one's mind to a new way of thinking, a more positive perspective on the world.

Okay, look. I have my down days, but on the whole I've been an optimist most of my life. When I write and send something off, I envision good things happening. But I'm often disappointed. This is because no matter how positive I am about my work, it doesn't mean someone else will be. My positivity doesn't really influence these people reading my scripts and stories. Thus, so far Achor's advice comes up to very little for me.

One interesting suggestion Achor had was to utilize one's natural talents and strengths. Apparently people show a greater level of satisfaction with life when they stretch those muscles. Achor sends his readers to an online site to take a 240-question survey to identify those strengths. (After you answer the questions, scroll to the bottom of the results page for a free option.) For the curious, here were my results:

Your Top Character Strength

Judgment

Thinking things through and examining them from all sides are important aspects of who you are. You do not jump to conclusions, and you rely only on solid evidence to make your decisions. You are able to change your mind.

Your Second Character Strength

Appreciation of Beauty & Excellence

You notice and appreciate beauty, excellence, and/or skilled performance in all domains of life, from nature to art to mathematics to science to everyday experience.

Your Third Character Strength

Creativity

Thinking of new ways to do things is a crucial part of who you are. You are never content with doing something the conventional way if a better way is possible.

Your Fourth Character Strength

Love of learning

You love learning new things, whether in a class or on your own. You have always loved school, reading, and museums—anywhere and everywhere there is an opportunity to learn.

Your Fifth Character Strength

Curiosity

You are curious about everything. You are always asking questions, and you find all subjects and topics fascinating. You like exploration and discovery.

Character Strength #6

Social intelligence

You are aware of the motives and feelings of other people. You know what to do to fit in to different social situations, and you know what to do to put others at ease.

Character Strength #7

Perspective

Although you may not think of yourself as wise, your friends hold this view of you. They value your perspective on matters and turn to you for advice. You have a way of looking at the world that makes sense to others and to yourself. 

I'll stop there to avoid boring you with more of my stellar traits; there were 24 total on the list, including Fairness and Humor, two of which I'm very proud and was surprised to find were not at the top (they were #10 and #11).

In any event, I'm not sure exactly how I'm supposed to incorporate Judgment into more of my day-to-day existence, short of becoming a detective of some kind. Hmm. And yes, I'm being facetious here, but the point is that Achor is being very glib and rudimentary about his advice; so far there is little I can take away and really use.

It's better to be happy. Yes. Being happier makes you more successful and productive. Yes, okay. These little things are some ways you might be able to be happier. ::nodding:: But what if they don't work? What if these are things you've already tried? How can you get others to be as enthusiastic about your work as you are (thus becoming more successful, if, like me, you work in a world that requires others to buy into your vision)?

In the portion of the book I'm currently reading, Achor has gone through some scientific studies and experiments that show a person's way of thinking can bring physical, concrete changes. (Think: placebos.) But in every example, the physical changes are only in the person him- or herself. The person loses weight or gets over a cold or whatever. I still have yet to see how being the best me I can be—the most positive, enthusiastic, whatever—can translate into others producing my work. Maybe Achor will get to that part somewhere later in the book. I hope so. I need all the help I can get.

Television: Parade's End (Episode 4/5)

In which a very long game of "Doughnut, Not a Doughnut" is played by bored officers at camp in Rouen. There was, in fact, quite a bit of fighting over the doughnuts Sylvia had been suspected of smuggling in from England. It was very entertaining.

Meanwhile, the real question is whether the emergency sonnet ever got translated into Latin?

I'm hoping Christopher dies and they find the sonnet in his pocket and spend their time wondering what it's all about. (It's about doughnuts, of course. What is Latin for "doughnut"?)

You see? Here, as in World War I camps, we make our own fun.