Tom's naked-in-front-of-everyone nightmare presages the "invited" dress rehearsal of Bombshell, which takes place in front of friends and family. Thanks to a laundry list of tech issues during this (including a wardrobe malfunction that leaves Ivy naked onstage), Tom is told he needs to cancel the first night of previews, but he protests. By Tom's reasoning, canceling would only make Bombshell appear more troubled. He has six hours to pull things together, else he must pull the plug on the preview.
Oh, and Derek and Ivy are sleeping together again.
Meanwhile, Jimmy is convinced his relationship with Karen has prodded Derek into cutting back their roles and turning the focus of Hit List more onto Anna as The Diva.
Julia pep talks Derek into seeing Hit List in a new light. After all, now that he's not filtering through Karen and DerekVision(TM), he should be able to see the show clearly, right? But when Derek's new way of seeing things makes Anna the first thing the audience will see (instead of Karen) . . . It seems like Jimmy's prediction has come to pass.
The problem here is that, for Jimmy, every idea is wrong unless it's his own. He wants complete creative control and doesn't know how to compromise. Admittedly, Derek has trouble with cooperation as well, but he's also been a director for a long time, so he's earned more of a right to have things his way. And it's his job as director besides. Smash tries to promote Jimmy as this sort of raw talent/prodigy, but he's really just an obnoxious brat. And I still don't see or feel any chemistry between him and Karen.
Good for Kyle, too, for standing up to Jimmy.
Some of Jimmy's snotty attitude is rubbing off on Karen; she tells Anna that the only reason The Diva has been beefed up is because Derek is punishing her (Karen) for being in a relationship with Jimmy, thus intimating that Anna hasn't earned the promotion by her own talents. Has Derek's muse flown yet again? She seems to hop from one young actress to another . . .
And yet the backstory supports the idea that the role of The Diva was bumped up because The New York Times guy was impressed with that number he saw at the fundraiser a few weeks back. Diving into The Diva has helped flesh out the story of Hit List. And maybe The Diva has a more interesting story, or is a more interesting angle, than whatever romance happens between Jimmy and Karen onstage.
At the end of the day, The New York Times does a compare/contrast of Bombshell and Hit List. The sum total of the write-up is that Bombshell is old school Broadway and Hit List is fresh and new. Oh, and points out how Julia had a hand in both productions. Which sets Tom off. And sends Eileen fussing at her NYT editor boyfriend. (I don't think that's very fair of her, to be upset that he did his job and was honest about it. She'd rather he had no integrity?)
While Bombshell folk spun the article as "Hit List is better than"—and that might well be a valid way to look at it—I'd think that seeing an article talking about two such shows might encourage potential audiences to want to see both and decide for themselves. Will the season end with the two shows going head to head? Does anyone still care? Considering there won't be a third season . . . Does it matter?
4.13.2013
Movies: Jurassic Park in IMAX 3D
Jurassic Park is one of my all-time favorite movies. It holds my personal record for films I've seen most often in the cinema at 10 11 times. It's hard for me to believe it's 20 years old, because that means I'm way older than I think or feel.
Actually, the movie came out when I was in high school. I was such a fan that my friends got a kick out of giving me JP gear. Even my journalism teacher gave me a JP coloring book and some die-cast dinos for my birthday that year. (She was the coolest; we went to Star Trek conventions together.) I had shirts, hats, toys, posters, coloring books, puzzles, bedding . . . A little weird for a high school girl, probably, but then I always was unusual. And my kids are now benefitting from my collector's mentality by having lots of awesome toys to play with, stuff you can't find any more.
There's also the fact that I was known as "The Raptor" . . . But that's another story.
Okay, so the movie. Well, it looks its age; not much one can do about that. But it has aged relatively well, too, in that Stan Winston's effects work holds up. And Spielberg, well, he's always been a personal hero of mine, so . . .
You definitely see the hand of the man who made Indiana Jones movies in Jurassic Park. That moment of finding and holding up the amber-encased mosquito. The musical score, particularly in scenes like when the jeeps first pull in to the Visitor Center. Some of the punches are a bit too obvious, like the way they show the besmirched JP logo several times as things go terribly wrong. Yes, we get it: It's a disaster.
But then some of the stuff is just so much fun, too, like "Space Aliens Stole My Face" on the trailer fridge at the Badlands dig. I love the scene with the car in the tree. And the movie is just so damn quotable. A lot of Spielberg movies seem to be, so I don't think it's so much the writing as the directing. Spielberg gets great work out of his actors, and he knows how to use film as a medium to make memories. Because that's what a film quote is: Something memorable that you not only carry away from the film but eventually incorporate into your everyday life. How amazing is that, when you think about it? That a well-delivered line can become part of a person's personal shorthand?
I don't know that the movie needed the 3D treatment. You'd think something like Jurassic Park would be awesome in 3D, and some scenes were, but the rest . . . ::shrug:: Of course, as regular readers know, I'm no big fan of the 3D push. But this one gave me less of a headache than some others have done. And if you're going to see it in 3D, you might as well see it in IMAX. Pretty awesome to see Waldo (the T-Rex) lording it on the really big screen.
Look, my love for this film clearly biases me from being able to make an objective review. But let's just say that, if I was a little worried I'd walk away disillusioned, I needn't have been. Seeing it in the cinema again only reaffirmed my love for Jurassic Park. It is a classic.
Actually, the movie came out when I was in high school. I was such a fan that my friends got a kick out of giving me JP gear. Even my journalism teacher gave me a JP coloring book and some die-cast dinos for my birthday that year. (She was the coolest; we went to Star Trek conventions together.) I had shirts, hats, toys, posters, coloring books, puzzles, bedding . . . A little weird for a high school girl, probably, but then I always was unusual. And my kids are now benefitting from my collector's mentality by having lots of awesome toys to play with, stuff you can't find any more.
There's also the fact that I was known as "The Raptor" . . . But that's another story.
Okay, so the movie. Well, it looks its age; not much one can do about that. But it has aged relatively well, too, in that Stan Winston's effects work holds up. And Spielberg, well, he's always been a personal hero of mine, so . . .
You definitely see the hand of the man who made Indiana Jones movies in Jurassic Park. That moment of finding and holding up the amber-encased mosquito. The musical score, particularly in scenes like when the jeeps first pull in to the Visitor Center. Some of the punches are a bit too obvious, like the way they show the besmirched JP logo several times as things go terribly wrong. Yes, we get it: It's a disaster.
But then some of the stuff is just so much fun, too, like "Space Aliens Stole My Face" on the trailer fridge at the Badlands dig. I love the scene with the car in the tree. And the movie is just so damn quotable. A lot of Spielberg movies seem to be, so I don't think it's so much the writing as the directing. Spielberg gets great work out of his actors, and he knows how to use film as a medium to make memories. Because that's what a film quote is: Something memorable that you not only carry away from the film but eventually incorporate into your everyday life. How amazing is that, when you think about it? That a well-delivered line can become part of a person's personal shorthand?
I don't know that the movie needed the 3D treatment. You'd think something like Jurassic Park would be awesome in 3D, and some scenes were, but the rest . . . ::shrug:: Of course, as regular readers know, I'm no big fan of the 3D push. But this one gave me less of a headache than some others have done. And if you're going to see it in 3D, you might as well see it in IMAX. Pretty awesome to see Waldo (the T-Rex) lording it on the really big screen.
Look, my love for this film clearly biases me from being able to make an objective review. But let's just say that, if I was a little worried I'd walk away disillusioned, I needn't have been. Seeing it in the cinema again only reaffirmed my love for Jurassic Park. It is a classic.
4.12.2013
My Concerns Over Rumors About the Forthcoming Season of American Horror Story
I hear it may be set in New Orleans.
I hear there may be Voodoo involved. Which would make sense if it's set in New Orleans.
I'm not going to get into my personal background, but let's say that I'm from that area and have some reservations about the cultural stereotypes that a show like American Horror Story is likely to promote. I will be very, very disappointed if they misrepresent my culture, either the people or religious underpinnings.
I realize, of course, that AHS is hardly realistic, nor is it trying or claiming to be. A show like that—hell, most horror—capitalizes on the misunderstandings of things like Catholicism and (now, possibly) Voodoo. It takes what people think they know, those stereotypes and old tales, and uses it as shorthand to draw people into the story. So I can't and won't be surprised if AHS plays such a hand here.
But I don't have to like it.
People sometimes call and ask me to meet them in New Orleans and show them around, and I'm happy to do it. But I often have to ask, "Do you want a tourist experience or an authentic experience?" Because, hey, even natives capitalize on the misperceptions of our culture. The difference here being that the culture sustains itself through such tourism. They benefit from it.
And you could argue that it will benefit from a display by AHS as well. If they actually film in New Orleans, that's money for the city. If the show prompts interest in people to visit, that's more money coming in. And that's good, it's fine. But if it intentionally misleads viewers, or causes a backlash against our culture and/or belief systems, that is not fine. So here's hoping they treat the subject matter with at least a little respect.
I hear there may be Voodoo involved. Which would make sense if it's set in New Orleans.
I'm not going to get into my personal background, but let's say that I'm from that area and have some reservations about the cultural stereotypes that a show like American Horror Story is likely to promote. I will be very, very disappointed if they misrepresent my culture, either the people or religious underpinnings.
I realize, of course, that AHS is hardly realistic, nor is it trying or claiming to be. A show like that—hell, most horror—capitalizes on the misunderstandings of things like Catholicism and (now, possibly) Voodoo. It takes what people think they know, those stereotypes and old tales, and uses it as shorthand to draw people into the story. So I can't and won't be surprised if AHS plays such a hand here.
But I don't have to like it.
People sometimes call and ask me to meet them in New Orleans and show them around, and I'm happy to do it. But I often have to ask, "Do you want a tourist experience or an authentic experience?" Because, hey, even natives capitalize on the misperceptions of our culture. The difference here being that the culture sustains itself through such tourism. They benefit from it.
And you could argue that it will benefit from a display by AHS as well. If they actually film in New Orleans, that's money for the city. If the show prompts interest in people to visit, that's more money coming in. And that's good, it's fine. But if it intentionally misleads viewers, or causes a backlash against our culture and/or belief systems, that is not fine. So here's hoping they treat the subject matter with at least a little respect.
4.10.2013
Television: Mad Men, "The Doorway"
Okay, so after having skipped out on most of last season (I think I watched four episodes before wandering off out of sheer boredom), I thought I'd try tuning back in for the sixth season premiere. I'd read about had been happening, so I wasn't lost or anything. But I continued to be bored.
At the start of the episode, Dan Draper and wife Megan are vacationing in Hawaii. This stretched-out opening is like being forced to watch someone's vacation home movies. While I understand the need to maybe show Don as an old fuddy next to his young, up-and-coming actress wife (and later we would see him losing his touch), it didn't require quite so much footage.
It was about this time I quit paying very close attention. Peggy was fielding a crisis with an account where she works now, Roger's mother died (and Don puked at the funeral), Betty was going to lengths to look after some girl named Sandy who plays violin . . . Oh, but then Roger's shoe shine guy died, too, and that's when he broke down. John Slattery continues to be the best thing about the show, the only character with anything very interesting happening. He tells his shrink how nothing in life changes, or at least nothing in life changes him, and it's true. He stands inside a circle of chaos. People die around him and he's just Roger. Until the moment the shoe shine kid's family sends Roger the shine kit. Apparently that was Roger's breaking point.
The episode punched up the whole mortality angle with heart attacks and doctors and deaths and such.
And Don? He goes back to his old tricks, cheating on Megan with a friend's wife. It did give me pause to consider the dynamic of Don's and Megan's relationship. She is the career woman, the rising star. Is cheating the way Don reasserts himself? Not that this excuses him. And it might just as easily be that old habits die hard, or that Don gets bored when saddled with a domestic situation.
In truth, though, I found the whole thing something of a drag. Like last season, I'll probably try a couple more episodes, but if it can't hold my interest, I'll be hopping into bed with other shows instead.
At the start of the episode, Dan Draper and wife Megan are vacationing in Hawaii. This stretched-out opening is like being forced to watch someone's vacation home movies. While I understand the need to maybe show Don as an old fuddy next to his young, up-and-coming actress wife (and later we would see him losing his touch), it didn't require quite so much footage.
It was about this time I quit paying very close attention. Peggy was fielding a crisis with an account where she works now, Roger's mother died (and Don puked at the funeral), Betty was going to lengths to look after some girl named Sandy who plays violin . . . Oh, but then Roger's shoe shine guy died, too, and that's when he broke down. John Slattery continues to be the best thing about the show, the only character with anything very interesting happening. He tells his shrink how nothing in life changes, or at least nothing in life changes him, and it's true. He stands inside a circle of chaos. People die around him and he's just Roger. Until the moment the shoe shine kid's family sends Roger the shine kit. Apparently that was Roger's breaking point.
The episode punched up the whole mortality angle with heart attacks and doctors and deaths and such.
And Don? He goes back to his old tricks, cheating on Megan with a friend's wife. It did give me pause to consider the dynamic of Don's and Megan's relationship. She is the career woman, the rising star. Is cheating the way Don reasserts himself? Not that this excuses him. And it might just as easily be that old habits die hard, or that Don gets bored when saddled with a domestic situation.
In truth, though, I found the whole thing something of a drag. Like last season, I'll probably try a couple more episodes, but if it can't hold my interest, I'll be hopping into bed with other shows instead.
4.09.2013
Random Associations
Do you ever link two things in your mind in some inexplicable way? Well, usually there is an explanation. Maybe they are two things you encountered or learned around the same time. Maybe you saw a movie and heard a song around the same time and so that movie and song are forever bonded in your brain, even though the song was never featured in the movie and has nothing really to do with it. You hear the song and think of the movie anyway.
Like, for me, this painting by Caspar David Friedrich is forever linked to Frankenstein. I have this idea the image was used on the cover of one of my high school literature textbooks and some excerpt of Frankenstein was inside and now these things have become co-mingled in my mind. Which is pretty impressive since I've never read any of Frankenstein, not even the excerpt from my lit text. But I had an interest in Byron, and I naturally associate him with Frankenstein, and I had this vague idea the man in the painting might look a bit like Byron, or dress like him anyway, and . . . Well. There you have it.
Not sure what made me think of that today, though. Brains are funny things.
Like, for me, this painting by Caspar David Friedrich is forever linked to Frankenstein. I have this idea the image was used on the cover of one of my high school literature textbooks and some excerpt of Frankenstein was inside and now these things have become co-mingled in my mind. Which is pretty impressive since I've never read any of Frankenstein, not even the excerpt from my lit text. But I had an interest in Byron, and I naturally associate him with Frankenstein, and I had this vague idea the man in the painting might look a bit like Byron, or dress like him anyway, and . . . Well. There you have it.
Not sure what made me think of that today, though. Brains are funny things.
4.08.2013
Books: The Heavy and the Light
I have a terrible habit of starting books and then abandoning them for long periods of time before going back to finish them. Sometimes this is because I get busy, but a lot of times it's because the book isn't the right "weight" for how I'm feeling at any given time.
I'm moody, maybe, and easily affected by the weather and the seasons. The kind of thing I'll read on a plane might not be the same kind of thing I'll read in a hotel room. What I want to read while sitting out on my deck is different from what I want when soaking in a bubble bath (yes, I read in the bath). So I end up with a stack of two to four books that I'm working through at any given time. And my Goodreads profile looks like a scattering of literary orphans.
Some months ago, for example, I started Smiley's People. I'm more than halfway done but kind of got bored with the story (which is strange, since I also think it's better than some of the others I've read in this series) and decided to pick up The Dante Club. I've been really enjoying that one, but it's a bit gruesome and gives me really strange dreams if I read it right before bed, so . . .
Okay, time out. Let me take a moment to explain this other of my habits. I really like Regency romance novels. A lot of romance publishers don't even have Regency lines any more, they just lump them in with "historical fiction" nowadays, but for a long time Regencies were popular enough to have their own branding. So every now and then I'll go on eBay and find some huge lot of old Regency romance paperbacks and buy it. Because I like having these kinds of light fare on reserve. These books are good for a quick read, for sitting outside in the sun, &c. And I know they won't give me nightmares before bed!
So anyway, at this point I went to my box of reserves and drew out two titles: A Perfect Arrangement by Ellen Rawlings (Diamond, September 1992) and Kenton's Countess by Janeane Jordan (Harlequin Regency, June 1992). Both equally silly and just the right kind of thing for quick snatches of time and/or breaks between writing and laundry and dealing with the children.
They say if you've read one Regency romance you've read them all, but I think you'd need to read about four to get a full picture of the possibilities. There are the ones that take place entirely in the country, the ones that take place entirely in London, those that start in the country and move to London, and those that start in London and "retire" to the country. Then there are ones where the girl's family has a lot of money and others where the girl's family is genteel but poor. (The men are pretty much always wealthy.) It's common to have spiteful siblings and/or a deceased parent. And a lot of time is spent describing people clothes, their hair, their horses and carriages (curricles, phaetons, and so forth). I once started to write a Regency romance myself but never finished it. Maybe I should dig that old project up . . .
The Dante Club is a historical of another stripe, seeing as it is set in Boston shortly after the end of the Civil War and features as its main characters very real historical figures. I've read bits and pieces of Dante, am pretty sure I was supposed to read all of it at one point (what with a minor in Classical history, which included Milton and Orlando and Spencer's The Faerie Queene among other things—none of which I read all the way through, though I've happily read Homer, Ovid and Virgil many times over, as well as any number of the Greek and Roman historians) . . . We have some Doré prints from Dante and Milton, in fact; they hang in the guest bath to keep anyone from lingering too long.
But anyway, The Dante Club doesn't really require a working knowledge of Dante; the author does a nice enough job of filling the reader in without it being too obvious. Still, I have the feeling I might be having more fun with the story if I did know Dante. It is, in short, a literary murder mystery, somewhat graphic in its details of the murders being committed. I'm sure I'll get back to the book sooner or later, since I am at least curious about how it end (don't tell me!).
And as for Smiley, well, I'll come back around to him too at some point. His is not really summer fare, but maybe come fall or winter . . . When the sky lowers and the days grow heavy, that's when I feel the need to pick up the weightier books, as if I were a librarian squirrel laying away a stash in preparation for colder days. But for now I'll enjoy the sun. And the semi-ridiculous tales of Regency misses and their handsome, aristocratic suitors.
I'm moody, maybe, and easily affected by the weather and the seasons. The kind of thing I'll read on a plane might not be the same kind of thing I'll read in a hotel room. What I want to read while sitting out on my deck is different from what I want when soaking in a bubble bath (yes, I read in the bath). So I end up with a stack of two to four books that I'm working through at any given time. And my Goodreads profile looks like a scattering of literary orphans.
Some months ago, for example, I started Smiley's People. I'm more than halfway done but kind of got bored with the story (which is strange, since I also think it's better than some of the others I've read in this series) and decided to pick up The Dante Club. I've been really enjoying that one, but it's a bit gruesome and gives me really strange dreams if I read it right before bed, so . . .
Okay, time out. Let me take a moment to explain this other of my habits. I really like Regency romance novels. A lot of romance publishers don't even have Regency lines any more, they just lump them in with "historical fiction" nowadays, but for a long time Regencies were popular enough to have their own branding. So every now and then I'll go on eBay and find some huge lot of old Regency romance paperbacks and buy it. Because I like having these kinds of light fare on reserve. These books are good for a quick read, for sitting outside in the sun, &c. And I know they won't give me nightmares before bed!
So anyway, at this point I went to my box of reserves and drew out two titles: A Perfect Arrangement by Ellen Rawlings (Diamond, September 1992) and Kenton's Countess by Janeane Jordan (Harlequin Regency, June 1992). Both equally silly and just the right kind of thing for quick snatches of time and/or breaks between writing and laundry and dealing with the children.
They say if you've read one Regency romance you've read them all, but I think you'd need to read about four to get a full picture of the possibilities. There are the ones that take place entirely in the country, the ones that take place entirely in London, those that start in the country and move to London, and those that start in London and "retire" to the country. Then there are ones where the girl's family has a lot of money and others where the girl's family is genteel but poor. (The men are pretty much always wealthy.) It's common to have spiteful siblings and/or a deceased parent. And a lot of time is spent describing people clothes, their hair, their horses and carriages (curricles, phaetons, and so forth). I once started to write a Regency romance myself but never finished it. Maybe I should dig that old project up . . .
The Dante Club is a historical of another stripe, seeing as it is set in Boston shortly after the end of the Civil War and features as its main characters very real historical figures. I've read bits and pieces of Dante, am pretty sure I was supposed to read all of it at one point (what with a minor in Classical history, which included Milton and Orlando and Spencer's The Faerie Queene among other things—none of which I read all the way through, though I've happily read Homer, Ovid and Virgil many times over, as well as any number of the Greek and Roman historians) . . . We have some Doré prints from Dante and Milton, in fact; they hang in the guest bath to keep anyone from lingering too long.
But anyway, The Dante Club doesn't really require a working knowledge of Dante; the author does a nice enough job of filling the reader in without it being too obvious. Still, I have the feeling I might be having more fun with the story if I did know Dante. It is, in short, a literary murder mystery, somewhat graphic in its details of the murders being committed. I'm sure I'll get back to the book sooner or later, since I am at least curious about how it end (don't tell me!).
And as for Smiley, well, I'll come back around to him too at some point. His is not really summer fare, but maybe come fall or winter . . . When the sky lowers and the days grow heavy, that's when I feel the need to pick up the weightier books, as if I were a librarian squirrel laying away a stash in preparation for colder days. But for now I'll enjoy the sun. And the semi-ridiculous tales of Regency misses and their handsome, aristocratic suitors.
4.06.2013
Television: Doctor Who, "The Rings of Akhaten"
While solid enough a story in theory (a grouping of seven planets comes together regularly for a festival and to offer a sacrifice to its god, and of course The Doctor and his new companion needs must stop the little girl from being "eaten" by said god), a lack of emotional connection to the characters left me feeling cold.
"The Rings of Akhaten" (not to be confused with the Pharaoh Akhenaten) begins with The Doctor dropping in on key moments in Clara's development, starting with the moment her parents meet, which explains the leaf she keeps in her book. We see young Clara kick a ball at The Doctor, we see her mourn her mother's passing. Maybe this is supposed to engender some kind of feeling for her, but . . . No. She remains more a cipher than a person. Even The Doctor can't make sense of her since she should be "impossible" (because she's already lived . . . twice?).
Fixated much?
Anyway, Clara has evidently agreed to travel a bit with The Doctor and he takes her to the titled Rings of Akhaten. And then the whole plot about the festival and the singing and the sacrifice to the ancient "god" which really just wakes up periodically to feast on . . . Memories? Experiences? Things sort of fall apart at this point because the god (which is more like the sun—makes sense, if this is a pseudo-Egyptian thing, but shows that despite all his experience The Doctor doesn't know s*** about history if he first thinks they're worshiping a mummy instead of said sun) sucks up a bunch of stuff from The Doctor (was it, like, licking him or something?), but somehow that fails to satisfy it. And The Doctor survives, which is weird since normally this sort of interaction is fatal for the sacrifices. And then Clara gives the god her special leaf and the god, now a cross between a sun and a jack-o-lantern, implodes. (Note that the leaf is destroyed in this interaction.)
I guess we're supposed to take away from all this the idea that Clara is a good person because she's moved to help the little girl and also willing to give up some of her most treasured possessions to do so, and to save The Doctor and this foreign world. Though one has to question what those beings are going to do without their sun. Maybe the sacrifice of one person every so often was worth it for light and heat and stuff.
Laid on particularly thick was the argument against creationism/religion. The Doctor starts by saying this world's belief system is "a nice story" and is happy to attend the festival but changes his tune when he discovers their tradition runs to human sacrifice. Then he lectures the little girl on the Big Bang Theory and tells her how she's made of elements . . . Look, I'm no religious fanatic but this particular stripe of ideology drew a lot of attention to itself. It was like a speech to a would-be suicide bomber or something.
For me, the show has lost something the past couple episodes. It feels like it's spinning its wheels. If the intention is a "slow build" between The Doctor and Clara, or to the bigger plot of who or what Clara really is, this is too slow. At the very least, they need to make me care. What's at stake? This Great Intelligence . . . Is that going anywhere? So far it doesn't seem to be very ominous.
Truthfully, for Doctor Who the world or the universe always seems to be at stake. But how often can you do that and make it compelling? So it needs to be something else this time. Maybe The Doctor's very sanity as he tries to sort out this whole Clara thing. (What if he comes to really care for her only to realize he must sacrifice her for the good of the larger population? See, I can do this off the top of my head. Step it up, boys. Or else get a girl like me to do it for you.)
"The Rings of Akhaten" (not to be confused with the Pharaoh Akhenaten) begins with The Doctor dropping in on key moments in Clara's development, starting with the moment her parents meet, which explains the leaf she keeps in her book. We see young Clara kick a ball at The Doctor, we see her mourn her mother's passing. Maybe this is supposed to engender some kind of feeling for her, but . . . No. She remains more a cipher than a person. Even The Doctor can't make sense of her since she should be "impossible" (because she's already lived . . . twice?).
Fixated much?
Anyway, Clara has evidently agreed to travel a bit with The Doctor and he takes her to the titled Rings of Akhaten. And then the whole plot about the festival and the singing and the sacrifice to the ancient "god" which really just wakes up periodically to feast on . . . Memories? Experiences? Things sort of fall apart at this point because the god (which is more like the sun—makes sense, if this is a pseudo-Egyptian thing, but shows that despite all his experience The Doctor doesn't know s*** about history if he first thinks they're worshiping a mummy instead of said sun) sucks up a bunch of stuff from The Doctor (was it, like, licking him or something?), but somehow that fails to satisfy it. And The Doctor survives, which is weird since normally this sort of interaction is fatal for the sacrifices. And then Clara gives the god her special leaf and the god, now a cross between a sun and a jack-o-lantern, implodes. (Note that the leaf is destroyed in this interaction.)
I guess we're supposed to take away from all this the idea that Clara is a good person because she's moved to help the little girl and also willing to give up some of her most treasured possessions to do so, and to save The Doctor and this foreign world. Though one has to question what those beings are going to do without their sun. Maybe the sacrifice of one person every so often was worth it for light and heat and stuff.
Laid on particularly thick was the argument against creationism/religion. The Doctor starts by saying this world's belief system is "a nice story" and is happy to attend the festival but changes his tune when he discovers their tradition runs to human sacrifice. Then he lectures the little girl on the Big Bang Theory and tells her how she's made of elements . . . Look, I'm no religious fanatic but this particular stripe of ideology drew a lot of attention to itself. It was like a speech to a would-be suicide bomber or something.
For me, the show has lost something the past couple episodes. It feels like it's spinning its wheels. If the intention is a "slow build" between The Doctor and Clara, or to the bigger plot of who or what Clara really is, this is too slow. At the very least, they need to make me care. What's at stake? This Great Intelligence . . . Is that going anywhere? So far it doesn't seem to be very ominous.
Truthfully, for Doctor Who the world or the universe always seems to be at stake. But how often can you do that and make it compelling? So it needs to be something else this time. Maybe The Doctor's very sanity as he tries to sort out this whole Clara thing. (What if he comes to really care for her only to realize he must sacrifice her for the good of the larger population? See, I can do this off the top of my head. Step it up, boys. Or else get a girl like me to do it for you.)
Television: Smash, "The Surprise Party"
Ivy and Tom are fighting because Ivy is angry he cast her mother. In addition, it is Ivy's birthday, and she's planning a party with her castmates—no Tom allowed.
Tom has conveniently forgotten it's Ivy's birthday until some flowers arrive for her. In an attempt to win her over, Tom phones Liza Minnelli.
And over at Hit List, Jimmy and Karen continue to sneak around, making out in the wardrobe room. Richard (that Times Arts editor guy) has dropped in, in the hopes of getting a story.
I have to say, Smash really seems to be reaching in order to find dramatic story lines. And the songs they keep piling on Hit List are of the generic, pop-radio sort. Are they hoping for actual airplay? Or just planning ahead for the release of the season's soundtrack? After all, these songs will have broader appeal than the Broadway sounds of Bombshell (which have mostly already been put out for consumption anyway).
Scott and Julia corner Kyle into reworking the sequence of scenes in Hit List. Ivy is bored to tears at dinner with Tom until Liza turns up. But Eileen has used this as a photo op to boost Bombshell's buzz, which almost breaks Tom and Ivy up again, and loses Eileen her date with Richard . . . And then Tom and Liza duet on a song Tom has written for Ivy's birthday. (Which in turn seems like a stunt to boost Smash's ratings. But one can't really fault them for it. Not like shows don't do it all the time.)
Karen tells Jimmy she doesn't want to do it in the closet. Or keep their relationship in the dark. Or something. Then she has a heart-to-heart with Derek and admits she's "kind of" seeing Jimmy.
Ivy escapes to her other birthday party (the one with her castmates) and Tom follows because the show's writers have used the fantastic old trope of Ivy having left behind her keys and Tom needing to return them. And by "fantastic" I mean really, really weak. Also, is Smash written by a bunch of pre-teen girls? Are we really using someone being left out of a party as a serious plot point?
Oh, and Karen gets mad at Jimmy when she realizes all their sneaking around was because he couldn't stand up to Derek.
And Kyle presents the revised Hit List to Derek. Who is pleased, though a lot of that is possibly derived from the idea that Karen's and Jimmy's roles will be reduced to accommodate more of Anna as "The Diva." Spiteful. But also one of the only interesting bits of emotional motivation in the entire episode. Derek, while not always likable, is in many ways the most complex character on the show, which makes him the most interesting. And episodes that feature little of him are thereby some of the least interesting.
Jimmy goes to apologize to Karen and they make up. And then she finds that baggie of drugs from a couple weeks ago. So . . . Yeah.
I am starting to wonder why I'm still watching this show. I find I care very little about the characters any more because their goals have more or less been met: Karen and Ivy are both starring in productions, and their relationship issues are not compelling. The obstacles the productions face are vague and amorphous. So maybe it's just as well Smash is ending as it seems to have lost its own clear drive.
Tom has conveniently forgotten it's Ivy's birthday until some flowers arrive for her. In an attempt to win her over, Tom phones Liza Minnelli.
And over at Hit List, Jimmy and Karen continue to sneak around, making out in the wardrobe room. Richard (that Times Arts editor guy) has dropped in, in the hopes of getting a story.
I have to say, Smash really seems to be reaching in order to find dramatic story lines. And the songs they keep piling on Hit List are of the generic, pop-radio sort. Are they hoping for actual airplay? Or just planning ahead for the release of the season's soundtrack? After all, these songs will have broader appeal than the Broadway sounds of Bombshell (which have mostly already been put out for consumption anyway).
Scott and Julia corner Kyle into reworking the sequence of scenes in Hit List. Ivy is bored to tears at dinner with Tom until Liza turns up. But Eileen has used this as a photo op to boost Bombshell's buzz, which almost breaks Tom and Ivy up again, and loses Eileen her date with Richard . . . And then Tom and Liza duet on a song Tom has written for Ivy's birthday. (Which in turn seems like a stunt to boost Smash's ratings. But one can't really fault them for it. Not like shows don't do it all the time.)
Karen tells Jimmy she doesn't want to do it in the closet. Or keep their relationship in the dark. Or something. Then she has a heart-to-heart with Derek and admits she's "kind of" seeing Jimmy.
Ivy escapes to her other birthday party (the one with her castmates) and Tom follows because the show's writers have used the fantastic old trope of Ivy having left behind her keys and Tom needing to return them. And by "fantastic" I mean really, really weak. Also, is Smash written by a bunch of pre-teen girls? Are we really using someone being left out of a party as a serious plot point?
Oh, and Karen gets mad at Jimmy when she realizes all their sneaking around was because he couldn't stand up to Derek.
And Kyle presents the revised Hit List to Derek. Who is pleased, though a lot of that is possibly derived from the idea that Karen's and Jimmy's roles will be reduced to accommodate more of Anna as "The Diva." Spiteful. But also one of the only interesting bits of emotional motivation in the entire episode. Derek, while not always likable, is in many ways the most complex character on the show, which makes him the most interesting. And episodes that feature little of him are thereby some of the least interesting.
Jimmy goes to apologize to Karen and they make up. And then she finds that baggie of drugs from a couple weeks ago. So . . . Yeah.
I am starting to wonder why I'm still watching this show. I find I care very little about the characters any more because their goals have more or less been met: Karen and Ivy are both starring in productions, and their relationship issues are not compelling. The obstacles the productions face are vague and amorphous. So maybe it's just as well Smash is ending as it seems to have lost its own clear drive.
4.05.2013
Movies: Room 237
In this documentary, various narrators theorize over hidden meanings in Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. The viewer never sees the faces of these speakers; instead, visual interest is added by using not only clips from The Shining (to illustrate the points being made) but also other Kubrick films and even old newsreels and cartoons as well.
As someone with a degree in radio-television-film and cultural communication, I always get a kick out of reading/hearing/seeing someone deconstruct something. I like being given these kinds of things to think about. I like having these kinds of things to discuss with others. That's my idea of a fun night (sad but true): a group of people at a dinner table, hashing out a book or movie or whatever. So Room 237 is a home version of this, and on that score I enjoyed watching it.
Of course, I do have to wonder why some people (people not in the industry or academia, you know, just the average person) feel compelled to take something like The Shining apart. But then, I suppose I'm not the only person in the world who finds it amusing to do so. And yet, after being forced to do it for so many years, I seldom take the initiative to break down a film so thoroughly as these people do The Shining. I have other things to do; maybe they don't. They've clearly watched the film repeatedly, whereas I've only managed to sit through it once.
Honestly, I'm no big fan of Kubrick, though I can admire and concede his talent. I found The Shining incredibly boring, but if what these narrators say is true, I should have been paying better attention. The theorists, however, come off as a bit obsessive. They all appear to be fans not only of The Shining but of Kubrick in general, and one has to then view their hypotheses through that bias. They are not passive observers; they have something to prove, whether it be that their specific theories are "correct" and somehow provable, or that Kubrick was a genius and worthy of all the admiration they've bestowed on him, or that repeated viewings of The Shining are not a waste of time and there really is something to be drawn out of the text.
One narrator discusses The Shining as an allegory for Colonization and the mass murder of the Native Americans. Another sees the film as being about the Holocaust. Yet another is fixated on the spacial relations in the house (she's made a map of the hotel as represented in the film); there's also discussion of the labyrinth. And of course there's a whole sex subtext—though if you've seen The Shining, you know a lot of the sex stuff isn't all that subtle. But the really amazing idea, I have to say, is the one that Kubrick hid clues throughout the film to let people know he helped the government fake the moon landing. Wow.
Here's the thing. I absolutely believe that Kubrick was the kind of guy to hide clues in his films. He was a very deliberate kind of filmmaker. He had a strong belief in cinema as a message, and he put those little messages in his work, like a children's book with hidden pictures. Kubrick was interested in the way the mind works: subliminal messages, dreams, conscious versus subconscious. What is seen and not seen, what is seen but doesn't register . . . Maybe that alone is a good reason to watch his films a few times over (if you can stand to, which I cannot).
But then we get into "author intent." We get into "encoding" and "decoding" of text. Is it really in there? Did he really mean that? And does it matter if he did? What people take away from a book or a movie or even a song . . . That is the bottom line. That is all that matters. If a writer or director wants to get a very specific point across, he had best be clear about it. Otherwise, if he relies on the audience to decode something very subtle, he may fail in getting his message to them at all. A few may "get it," but more may not.
This isn't to say one should beat one's viewer or reader over the head with something. But themes, if important to the creator, should be clear so that those engaging with the text can find them.
Unless, of course, Kubrick only put these things in to satisfy himself. Or to test his audiences.
I'd say he may not have realized it at all, that it may all have been subconscious on his part, but I believe Kubrick was a careful enough filmmaker not to have had that happen (much). For me, as a writer, I often don't realize my themes or through lines until after I've finished something; even then, sometimes someone has to point them out to me and ask, "Did you mean . . .?" But unlike Kubrick, I'm also not trying to be Freudian about anything. I just like playing with characters, setting them up and seeing what they do in different situations.
I'm getting off topic here, but you surely get the gist. At any rate, Room 237 is an interesting documentary, if only to show how deep down the rabbit hole one can go if one is willing to take that plunge. And yet . . . There's the sense, too, that some of these narrators are really reaching, striving to prove their points. I won't say any of the arguments are invalid—it's all subjective and who am I to judge?—but some at least seem to sit on firmer ground than others.
Still, Room 237 is a great potential starting point for longer, deeper discussions. Turn it into a home game with some friends: Pick a movie and then "Room 237" it by having everyone come up with some crazy theory. (Note: You may have to give everyone a week or so to research and/or re-view the film in question. Kind of like a book club. But it would be a "Room 237" film deconstruction club. Hey . . . Did I just make a "thing"? Cool.)
Ah, but did Kubrick diss Stephen King by showing that red Volkswagen crushed by a semi? Discuss!
As someone with a degree in radio-television-film and cultural communication, I always get a kick out of reading/hearing/seeing someone deconstruct something. I like being given these kinds of things to think about. I like having these kinds of things to discuss with others. That's my idea of a fun night (sad but true): a group of people at a dinner table, hashing out a book or movie or whatever. So Room 237 is a home version of this, and on that score I enjoyed watching it.
Of course, I do have to wonder why some people (people not in the industry or academia, you know, just the average person) feel compelled to take something like The Shining apart. But then, I suppose I'm not the only person in the world who finds it amusing to do so. And yet, after being forced to do it for so many years, I seldom take the initiative to break down a film so thoroughly as these people do The Shining. I have other things to do; maybe they don't. They've clearly watched the film repeatedly, whereas I've only managed to sit through it once.
Honestly, I'm no big fan of Kubrick, though I can admire and concede his talent. I found The Shining incredibly boring, but if what these narrators say is true, I should have been paying better attention. The theorists, however, come off as a bit obsessive. They all appear to be fans not only of The Shining but of Kubrick in general, and one has to then view their hypotheses through that bias. They are not passive observers; they have something to prove, whether it be that their specific theories are "correct" and somehow provable, or that Kubrick was a genius and worthy of all the admiration they've bestowed on him, or that repeated viewings of The Shining are not a waste of time and there really is something to be drawn out of the text.
One narrator discusses The Shining as an allegory for Colonization and the mass murder of the Native Americans. Another sees the film as being about the Holocaust. Yet another is fixated on the spacial relations in the house (she's made a map of the hotel as represented in the film); there's also discussion of the labyrinth. And of course there's a whole sex subtext—though if you've seen The Shining, you know a lot of the sex stuff isn't all that subtle. But the really amazing idea, I have to say, is the one that Kubrick hid clues throughout the film to let people know he helped the government fake the moon landing. Wow.
Here's the thing. I absolutely believe that Kubrick was the kind of guy to hide clues in his films. He was a very deliberate kind of filmmaker. He had a strong belief in cinema as a message, and he put those little messages in his work, like a children's book with hidden pictures. Kubrick was interested in the way the mind works: subliminal messages, dreams, conscious versus subconscious. What is seen and not seen, what is seen but doesn't register . . . Maybe that alone is a good reason to watch his films a few times over (if you can stand to, which I cannot).
But then we get into "author intent." We get into "encoding" and "decoding" of text. Is it really in there? Did he really mean that? And does it matter if he did? What people take away from a book or a movie or even a song . . . That is the bottom line. That is all that matters. If a writer or director wants to get a very specific point across, he had best be clear about it. Otherwise, if he relies on the audience to decode something very subtle, he may fail in getting his message to them at all. A few may "get it," but more may not.
This isn't to say one should beat one's viewer or reader over the head with something. But themes, if important to the creator, should be clear so that those engaging with the text can find them.
Unless, of course, Kubrick only put these things in to satisfy himself. Or to test his audiences.
I'd say he may not have realized it at all, that it may all have been subconscious on his part, but I believe Kubrick was a careful enough filmmaker not to have had that happen (much). For me, as a writer, I often don't realize my themes or through lines until after I've finished something; even then, sometimes someone has to point them out to me and ask, "Did you mean . . .?" But unlike Kubrick, I'm also not trying to be Freudian about anything. I just like playing with characters, setting them up and seeing what they do in different situations.
I'm getting off topic here, but you surely get the gist. At any rate, Room 237 is an interesting documentary, if only to show how deep down the rabbit hole one can go if one is willing to take that plunge. And yet . . . There's the sense, too, that some of these narrators are really reaching, striving to prove their points. I won't say any of the arguments are invalid—it's all subjective and who am I to judge?—but some at least seem to sit on firmer ground than others.
Still, Room 237 is a great potential starting point for longer, deeper discussions. Turn it into a home game with some friends: Pick a movie and then "Room 237" it by having everyone come up with some crazy theory. (Note: You may have to give everyone a week or so to research and/or re-view the film in question. Kind of like a book club. But it would be a "Room 237" film deconstruction club. Hey . . . Did I just make a "thing"? Cool.)
Ah, but did Kubrick diss Stephen King by showing that red Volkswagen crushed by a semi? Discuss!
Less Mad at You, Variety
Still hate your site, but enjoying the new format of my weekly mailing. It's too large for my bookshelves, but other than that, nicely done.
4.04.2013
Television: Elementary, "Snow Angels"
Nor'easter is coming. Homicide at a skyscraper housing a tech company. And an unexpected houseguest at the brownstone. (Miss Hudson? Really? Except, biologically, she's a he.)
The theft of an upgraded model phone doesn't much interest Holmes until all the power in the city goes out. The phones were a red herring anyway; pretty quickly it's determined the phones were discarded by the thieves when a bum is found selling them on the street. Further investigation of the building suggests it was actually an architectural firm that was the true target for the break-in.
Miss Hudson's most recent lover comes to call in the hopes of winning her back. (Apparently Holmes has called for Hudson's knowledge of ancient Greek several times in his work, which is why she came to him when ousted by her "protector.")
Perusal of the architectural plans (the ones that show contact) lead Holmes to EROC. Turns out $33m that was supposed to be shredded has instead been stolen, with fake paper shredded in its place.
Taking a page from Holmes, Detective Bell hunts up one of the perpetrators at a local hospital, and he and Gregson hold their own stripping down her false identity and turning her over. Unfortunately they—and surprisingly Holmes as well—forget how clever the whole plan has thus far been and somehow believe the information on the bad French woman's phone is truly indicative of . . . something. Which prompts a sting that goes bust. (It's either that the information on the phone was meant to be misleading, or else the writers also somehow forgot these people were supposed to be clever . . .)
Miss Hudson makes herself useful by cleaning up. Housekeeper anyone?
As per usual, someone introduced early and briefly becomes a key player: the FEMA supervisor comes under suspicion of having facilitated the getaway for the money. They set her up to attempt to free the bad French lady (whose name is Elle, but I like calling her that), and she falls for it. Case closed. Bad French lady turns on her cohorts, the money is retrieved, and Miss Hudson is hired to clean on a regular basis.
On the whole, not a terribly enterprising episode. But a few nice call-outs: Bell's and Gregson's growing ability to use some of Holmes's methods; the introduction of Miss Hudson; and the subtle showing of Holmes's generosity (paired with a glimpse of what was likely a privileged upbringing) as he uses money to simultaneously help people and get what he wants. Also, a cameo by Clyde the Tortoise.
What the episode lacked was more of the banter between Holmes and Watson. Now that they've moved into mentor/protegeé territory, things are in some ways less compelling. Though they do occasionally spat, Holmes and Watson are now more comfortable with one another, and yet Watson's grudging subservience as Holmes attempts to teach her fails to be as interesting or entertaining as when she was the one responsible for him. I'm hoping this is just a phase and the writers will find some way to up the ante soon.
The theft of an upgraded model phone doesn't much interest Holmes until all the power in the city goes out. The phones were a red herring anyway; pretty quickly it's determined the phones were discarded by the thieves when a bum is found selling them on the street. Further investigation of the building suggests it was actually an architectural firm that was the true target for the break-in.
Miss Hudson's most recent lover comes to call in the hopes of winning her back. (Apparently Holmes has called for Hudson's knowledge of ancient Greek several times in his work, which is why she came to him when ousted by her "protector.")
Perusal of the architectural plans (the ones that show contact) lead Holmes to EROC. Turns out $33m that was supposed to be shredded has instead been stolen, with fake paper shredded in its place.
Taking a page from Holmes, Detective Bell hunts up one of the perpetrators at a local hospital, and he and Gregson hold their own stripping down her false identity and turning her over. Unfortunately they—and surprisingly Holmes as well—forget how clever the whole plan has thus far been and somehow believe the information on the bad French woman's phone is truly indicative of . . . something. Which prompts a sting that goes bust. (It's either that the information on the phone was meant to be misleading, or else the writers also somehow forgot these people were supposed to be clever . . .)
Miss Hudson makes herself useful by cleaning up. Housekeeper anyone?
As per usual, someone introduced early and briefly becomes a key player: the FEMA supervisor comes under suspicion of having facilitated the getaway for the money. They set her up to attempt to free the bad French lady (whose name is Elle, but I like calling her that), and she falls for it. Case closed. Bad French lady turns on her cohorts, the money is retrieved, and Miss Hudson is hired to clean on a regular basis.
On the whole, not a terribly enterprising episode. But a few nice call-outs: Bell's and Gregson's growing ability to use some of Holmes's methods; the introduction of Miss Hudson; and the subtle showing of Holmes's generosity (paired with a glimpse of what was likely a privileged upbringing) as he uses money to simultaneously help people and get what he wants. Also, a cameo by Clyde the Tortoise.
What the episode lacked was more of the banter between Holmes and Watson. Now that they've moved into mentor/protegeé territory, things are in some ways less compelling. Though they do occasionally spat, Holmes and Watson are now more comfortable with one another, and yet Watson's grudging subservience as Holmes attempts to teach her fails to be as interesting or entertaining as when she was the one responsible for him. I'm hoping this is just a phase and the writers will find some way to up the ante soon.
Scripting, Part II
So I've finished the first draft of that script I mentioned a couple times before. I've sent it to one director/producer who is interested and it's also on the Black List for others to look at.
And now there are some other production companies interested in turning one of my short plays into a short film, so I may get around to adapting that for screen too. But for now I'm doing the A–Z Challenge over on PepperWords and planning to finish the sequel to St. Peter in Chains.
And now there are some other production companies interested in turning one of my short plays into a short film, so I may get around to adapting that for screen too. But for now I'm doing the A–Z Challenge over on PepperWords and planning to finish the sequel to St. Peter in Chains.
4.02.2013
Television: Smash, "The Parents"
Tonight on Smash: Karen's Dad and Ivy's Mom!
After having Jimmy stay over, Karen's dad turns up unexpectedly and Jimmy goes out the window. Literally.
And Ivy's mother has been cast in Bombshell. As Marilyn's mother.
Hit List continues down the road of weird performance art piece masquerading as a musical . . . Okay, I'll just admit it isn't my kind of theatre. At least based on what I've seen. It's hard to tell from the bits and pieces.
Except I did like Rent when I saw it. So . . . I don't know. If Hit List is trying to be Rent . . .
Jimmy, meanwhile, also continues down the road of being utterly obnoxious by (a) worrying that Karen will tell other people they slept together (thus setting off Derek), and (b) having a dealer he stole money from turn up at rehearsals.
Ivy and her mom try to play nice but Tom urges them toward their hidden bitterness as he tries to get them to perform a scene in which Marilyn and her mother fight.
And Karen's dad accuses Derek of ruining his daughter's career by yanking her off Broadway and dragging her into a basement version of Cirque du Soleil. (Okay, he didn't say the Cirque du Soleil part, but really, that's what Hit List has become.) Karen's dad makes a pointed observation of Derek's jacket and a comment about going out the window, much to Derek's bewilderment.
Derek finds Jimmy going through people's coats in search of loose change (or full wallets) because there are no couches where they are. Jimmy then spills the story of how he needs $8,000 to pay back his ex-dealer. Derek offers to spot Jimmy the cash. Problem solved. Wow. What a story line that wasn't really a story line. It's like they felt they needed to bring in the drug story some more but didn't want to risk making Jimmy any more unlikeable than he already is.
Oh, and while playing in the coat room, we see that Derek and Jimmy have almost identical jackets. Something Karen's dad notices as well, motivating him to revise his hypothesis.
And Eileen starts dating the Arts editor from the paper.
Then we're forced to listen to Bernadette Peters sing. Which isn't normally a problem, but the song itself is awful and interminable.
Karen's dad spills it to Derek by mentioning that it wasn't Derek he saw with his daughter . . .
. . . And Scott asks Julia to be dramaturg for Hit List because, after such great response, Anna's role needs to be cranked up.
Plus, Jimmy pays off his ex-dealer but doesn't say no to a little something for the road. We also learn that Collins is probably not Jimmy's real surname. If that matters. Or we even care. Which I don't. Because I find all attempts to make Jimmy interesting or sympathetic to be hollow, forced, and trite.
And don't forget, viewers, that the next episode is on Saturday, which will be Smash's new night. Like Karen, it has gone from the bright lights of Broadway to the dim bulbs of what amounts to the basement of weekly television.
After having Jimmy stay over, Karen's dad turns up unexpectedly and Jimmy goes out the window. Literally.
And Ivy's mother has been cast in Bombshell. As Marilyn's mother.
Hit List continues down the road of weird performance art piece masquerading as a musical . . . Okay, I'll just admit it isn't my kind of theatre. At least based on what I've seen. It's hard to tell from the bits and pieces.
Except I did like Rent when I saw it. So . . . I don't know. If Hit List is trying to be Rent . . .
Jimmy, meanwhile, also continues down the road of being utterly obnoxious by (a) worrying that Karen will tell other people they slept together (thus setting off Derek), and (b) having a dealer he stole money from turn up at rehearsals.
Ivy and her mom try to play nice but Tom urges them toward their hidden bitterness as he tries to get them to perform a scene in which Marilyn and her mother fight.
And Karen's dad accuses Derek of ruining his daughter's career by yanking her off Broadway and dragging her into a basement version of Cirque du Soleil. (Okay, he didn't say the Cirque du Soleil part, but really, that's what Hit List has become.) Karen's dad makes a pointed observation of Derek's jacket and a comment about going out the window, much to Derek's bewilderment.
Derek finds Jimmy going through people's coats in search of loose change (or full wallets) because there are no couches where they are. Jimmy then spills the story of how he needs $8,000 to pay back his ex-dealer. Derek offers to spot Jimmy the cash. Problem solved. Wow. What a story line that wasn't really a story line. It's like they felt they needed to bring in the drug story some more but didn't want to risk making Jimmy any more unlikeable than he already is.
Oh, and while playing in the coat room, we see that Derek and Jimmy have almost identical jackets. Something Karen's dad notices as well, motivating him to revise his hypothesis.
And Eileen starts dating the Arts editor from the paper.
Then we're forced to listen to Bernadette Peters sing. Which isn't normally a problem, but the song itself is awful and interminable.
Karen's dad spills it to Derek by mentioning that it wasn't Derek he saw with his daughter . . .
. . . And Scott asks Julia to be dramaturg for Hit List because, after such great response, Anna's role needs to be cranked up.
Plus, Jimmy pays off his ex-dealer but doesn't say no to a little something for the road. We also learn that Collins is probably not Jimmy's real surname. If that matters. Or we even care. Which I don't. Because I find all attempts to make Jimmy interesting or sympathetic to be hollow, forced, and trite.
And don't forget, viewers, that the next episode is on Saturday, which will be Smash's new night. Like Karen, it has gone from the bright lights of Broadway to the dim bulbs of what amounts to the basement of weekly television.
4.01.2013
Television: Revolution, "Ghosts"
I've realized I'm, like, the Mr. Cranky of television reviewers. I'm difficult to please. I don't mean to be. It would be fair of you to ask, "Then why do you watch it, if you hate it so much?" But I don't hate it. Not Revolution, nor any of the other shows I watch. Life's too short to waste time on bad TV.
There's not much really great television out there. There are good shows, and there are shows that are sometimes good and sometimes not . . . Then there are shows where I feel there's potential, and I watch them in the hopes they will eventually fulfill that potential. Revolution is one of those shows.
My problem is, I have a hard time determining when to give up and let go. When do I pull the plug on the life support? For Revolution, I'll probably at least see out the season. Maybe they'll have some great cliffhanger that compels me to return. Or maybe I'll just wander off.
Anyway, "Ghosts" has Miles vowing to help the rebels bring down Monroe. He and Nora take off while Rachel and Charlie are left with other rebels to be awkward with each other. After all, Charlie hasn't had a real mom in a long time; how should Rachel re-assert her parental authority when she doesn't want Charlie to go off on a raid?
Miles and Nora visit the Stephen King wing of the library in Culpeper, Virginia, as they search for Jim Hudson. Turns out he's remade himself into a librarian named Henry. Jim/Henry had once helped Miles attempt to assassinate Monroe, but you can see how that turned out. So Miles tells Jim he wants to finish the job.
RandallFlagg Flynn descends on the rebel camp where Charlie and Rachel are staying; he's been tracking the pendants. (Then why didn't he collect them a long time ago?) Rachel destroys the flash drives inside the pendants to prevent Randall and Monroe making use of them.
Backstory for Randall attempts to give him a reason for wanting to have this blackout weapon: his soldier son was killed in Kabul. But this doesn't really make him any more sympathetic a character. I think it's the actor; Colm Feore is just too mean looking to feel sorry for.
A kill squad of Monroe's men enter Culpeper in search of Miles, Nora, and Jim.Hilarity Violence ensues. Guy on the horse just kinda sits there, though, until Jim gives away the location of his wife—which happens to be a very visible window.
Look, I have a degree in radio-television-film. But even before college I had watched enough movies and TV shows to be able to take them apart. The reason I write about the flaws in these things is because there's more to say about where things go wrong than when they go right. An example follows.
Regarding something I really like: "Wow! This is a great show/movie!"
Regarding something I have mixed feelings about: "Well, some of it is good but . . . [list of things that aren't so good]."
Statistics show that people are more likely to review something (a book, a show, a restaurant) if they don't like it or had a bad experience with it than if they do like it. Because when something goes wrong, there's more to be said. There's a story there. No one watches a TV show about a bunch of people who are completely happy and have no problems. That would be boring. And a review about a show that's perfect would be just as dull.
So if I come off harsh or negative, keep in mind that I'm picking out the flaws because that's where the points of discussion lie. Not because I'm "down on" a show or movie or whatever. Anything I take the time to watch, and the additional time to write about besides, I at least like a little.
There's not much really great television out there. There are good shows, and there are shows that are sometimes good and sometimes not . . . Then there are shows where I feel there's potential, and I watch them in the hopes they will eventually fulfill that potential. Revolution is one of those shows.
My problem is, I have a hard time determining when to give up and let go. When do I pull the plug on the life support? For Revolution, I'll probably at least see out the season. Maybe they'll have some great cliffhanger that compels me to return. Or maybe I'll just wander off.
Anyway, "Ghosts" has Miles vowing to help the rebels bring down Monroe. He and Nora take off while Rachel and Charlie are left with other rebels to be awkward with each other. After all, Charlie hasn't had a real mom in a long time; how should Rachel re-assert her parental authority when she doesn't want Charlie to go off on a raid?
Miles and Nora visit the Stephen King wing of the library in Culpeper, Virginia, as they search for Jim Hudson. Turns out he's remade himself into a librarian named Henry. Jim/Henry had once helped Miles attempt to assassinate Monroe, but you can see how that turned out. So Miles tells Jim he wants to finish the job.
Randall
Backstory for Randall attempts to give him a reason for wanting to have this blackout weapon: his soldier son was killed in Kabul. But this doesn't really make him any more sympathetic a character. I think it's the actor; Colm Feore is just too mean looking to feel sorry for.
A kill squad of Monroe's men enter Culpeper in search of Miles, Nora, and Jim.
Look, I have a degree in radio-television-film. But even before college I had watched enough movies and TV shows to be able to take them apart. The reason I write about the flaws in these things is because there's more to say about where things go wrong than when they go right. An example follows.
Regarding something I really like: "Wow! This is a great show/movie!"
Regarding something I have mixed feelings about: "Well, some of it is good but . . . [list of things that aren't so good]."
Statistics show that people are more likely to review something (a book, a show, a restaurant) if they don't like it or had a bad experience with it than if they do like it. Because when something goes wrong, there's more to be said. There's a story there. No one watches a TV show about a bunch of people who are completely happy and have no problems. That would be boring. And a review about a show that's perfect would be just as dull.
So if I come off harsh or negative, keep in mind that I'm picking out the flaws because that's where the points of discussion lie. Not because I'm "down on" a show or movie or whatever. Anything I take the time to watch, and the additional time to write about besides, I at least like a little.
Television: Community
I was late to this party, only started watching this show a few months ago. Now I've been catching up on Hulu and although the first few episodes didn't win me over, the more I watch, the more I really love this show.
With 30 Rock gone and The Office and Modern Family no longer very funny, Community fills my need for laughs. It is amazingly well written and Joel McHale does some of the best acting on television. But really, the whole ensemble is great. While I don't entirely buy all the romantic shenanigans, it's easy enough to bypass those and enjoy the rest of the show. (Thank goodness romance is not the core of this program—it's not Friends, after all; it's better than that.)
Community seems to be on the bubble over whether it will manage to finagle another season, though I'm hoping for at least another half season. Right now it really is the funniest thing on network television, and probably one of the cleverest too. Very refreshing to watch this show when so many others seem stuck in their ruts.
With 30 Rock gone and The Office and Modern Family no longer very funny, Community fills my need for laughs. It is amazingly well written and Joel McHale does some of the best acting on television. But really, the whole ensemble is great. While I don't entirely buy all the romantic shenanigans, it's easy enough to bypass those and enjoy the rest of the show. (Thank goodness romance is not the core of this program—it's not Friends, after all; it's better than that.)
Community seems to be on the bubble over whether it will manage to finagle another season, though I'm hoping for at least another half season. Right now it really is the funniest thing on network television, and probably one of the cleverest too. Very refreshing to watch this show when so many others seem stuck in their ruts.
3.31.2013
Television: Doctor Who, "The Bells of Saint John"
Well . . . The music was good. Some of it. Although the fact that I was noticing the music either suggests it drew too much attention to itself or the episode wasn't engaging enough to keep me from looking for something else to focus on.
I just . . . Nothing about it was very scary, or eerie, or funny, or clever. It just kind of . . . was. A show. I mean, the fez and bowtie thing have been so overdone at this point that they aren't cute or poignant any more; they border instead on self-parody, though it feels more like the writers and producers (some of them are the same persons) found something that "worked" and keep pushing that button, hoping for the same great audience reaction every time. The law of diminishing returns, however, states the more you do something the less people will enjoy it. You won't get as many laughs if you tell the same joke over and over, even if you tell it twelve different ways.
The Doctor tripping all over himself for Clara isn't cute or funny either. Making her say "Doctor Who" again and again was obnoxious. And Clara stringing him along with, "Come back tomorrow, maybe I'll say yes," doesn't make me like her.
I didn't for a second believe her as someone who didn't know how to work the computer, either.
And I knew the moment the baddies started talking about a "client" they meant the Great Intelligence.
Said writer(s) and producer(s) is/are rather in love with his/their own work, it seems. Use of text on the screen? Didn't I see that on the other show? A lot? It's all become one big lump of sameness. Because it's all the same writer(s) and producer(s) and idea(s).
It's kind of like having that old uncle at family gatherings who likes to hear himself talk and tells the same stories over and over again. Except every now and then he embellishes a little more. And then you say, "Last time he told that one, didn't it have . . .?" and your mother tells you to hush and says the uncle will die soon anyway so let him have his say. Which is fine until, after a few more such gatherings, you start to think, Not soon enough.
Too harsh? I feel like maybe I'm being too harsh.
But I also feel like Doctor Who has very little that's fresh and new. I want to be either surprised, or amused, or creeped out, or made curious, made to really think . . . maybe, on the outside, heartwarmed . . . But I was none of these things. The episode felt very empty to me. Like a bowl. It had shape and the promise of potential content but all I found in it was air.
This doesn't surprise me, but it does hugely disappoint me. I was really hoping they'd step up their game. Maybe this is a toe-dipper and there are better things to come, deeper waters to navigate. One certainly hopes so.
Shout out to my readers in New Zealand who are hitting me up in scores tonight. XOXO
I just . . . Nothing about it was very scary, or eerie, or funny, or clever. It just kind of . . . was. A show. I mean, the fez and bowtie thing have been so overdone at this point that they aren't cute or poignant any more; they border instead on self-parody, though it feels more like the writers and producers (some of them are the same persons) found something that "worked" and keep pushing that button, hoping for the same great audience reaction every time. The law of diminishing returns, however, states the more you do something the less people will enjoy it. You won't get as many laughs if you tell the same joke over and over, even if you tell it twelve different ways.
The Doctor tripping all over himself for Clara isn't cute or funny either. Making her say "Doctor Who" again and again was obnoxious. And Clara stringing him along with, "Come back tomorrow, maybe I'll say yes," doesn't make me like her.
I didn't for a second believe her as someone who didn't know how to work the computer, either.
And I knew the moment the baddies started talking about a "client" they meant the Great Intelligence.
Said writer(s) and producer(s) is/are rather in love with his/their own work, it seems. Use of text on the screen? Didn't I see that on the other show? A lot? It's all become one big lump of sameness. Because it's all the same writer(s) and producer(s) and idea(s).
It's kind of like having that old uncle at family gatherings who likes to hear himself talk and tells the same stories over and over again. Except every now and then he embellishes a little more. And then you say, "Last time he told that one, didn't it have . . .?" and your mother tells you to hush and says the uncle will die soon anyway so let him have his say. Which is fine until, after a few more such gatherings, you start to think, Not soon enough.
Too harsh? I feel like maybe I'm being too harsh.
But I also feel like Doctor Who has very little that's fresh and new. I want to be either surprised, or amused, or creeped out, or made curious, made to really think . . . maybe, on the outside, heartwarmed . . . But I was none of these things. The episode felt very empty to me. Like a bowl. It had shape and the promise of potential content but all I found in it was air.
This doesn't surprise me, but it does hugely disappoint me. I was really hoping they'd step up their game. Maybe this is a toe-dipper and there are better things to come, deeper waters to navigate. One certainly hopes so.
Shout out to my readers in New Zealand who are hitting me up in scores tonight. XOXO
3.27.2013
Television: Revolution, "The Stand"
You know, like the Stephen King novel.
By the way, if the pendants are "amplifiers," what are they amplifying?
I wasn't sure I'd continue to watch this show, and clearly (from my belated posting), one can tell I didn't prioritize it.
But anyway, we begin with Miles & Co. escaping Philadelphia and Miles plotting to use his newfound (and literal) power to turn all of what was once the United States into the Monroe Republic.
I can't get over the sense that Elizabeth Mitchell is really just reprising her role from Lost for this show. Exact same attitude.
Pretty stupid, I'd say, for the Miles Mob to head straight for where they know the bad people are going to be (i.e., the Rebel camps). I realize this is because they are "good" and want to help, want to stop the bad guys from killing all the good ones. But how to do that if you're dead too? No one seems to be thinking things through very well. As viewers we're supposed to root for them, heart over head, even as they follow their hearts . . . This is, I suppose, what separates these good guys from the rational, unfeeling bad ones. The good guys only kill when there is no other choice. The bad guys kills "preemptively" and often delight in it besides.
But I am not connecting with these good guy characters. And since my heart isn't in it with them, my head only continues to point out how dumb they act and react to things.
In fact, the bad guys—Bass Monroe, Major Neville—are far more engaging than any of the good crowd. It's easier to connect to them because they are more complex and more interesting. Not in a way that makes you want to side with them, but you'd rather watch them than Miles and Friends.
Neville's son Jason breaks with his father by disagreeing with the butchering of Rebels. He runs off to warn Charlie that the choppers are coming. But instead of running, hiding, the Rebels decide to (title check!) take a stand. (Again, like the Stephen King novel. Also: Randall. These writers really like Stephen King, I think.)
Speaking of Randall—remember him? from when Rachel and her husband took on a project from the government? and now he has Grace? (oh, and Colm Feore was in that Stephen King miniseries)—Rachel and Miles go to one of her ex-associates (John) for help, but he alerts Randall to their presence. It turns out to be not much of a plot point, however, because Miles and Rachel escape without too much trouble. And they get some bazookas while they're at it.
Danny uses said bazookas to good effect against the choppers when they come against the Rebels. Alas
[SPOILER ALERT]
the choppers manage to cut Danny down, sending Rachel on a self-flagellation bender while Charlie merely redoubles her determination to fight against Monroe.
Randall drives (yes, drives) with John to offer Monroe his services . . .
And Rachel removes a blinking light from Danny's corpse (though, seriously, the effects were weak because it didn't even look like real skin she was cutting into) . . . We can, one guesses, draw some kind of line between this light and the unique operation Danny had as a child.
Previews of coming weeks suggest, too, that someone has Daniel Faraday's notebook.
By the way, if the pendants are "amplifiers," what are they amplifying?
I wasn't sure I'd continue to watch this show, and clearly (from my belated posting), one can tell I didn't prioritize it.
But anyway, we begin with Miles & Co. escaping Philadelphia and Miles plotting to use his newfound (and literal) power to turn all of what was once the United States into the Monroe Republic.
I can't get over the sense that Elizabeth Mitchell is really just reprising her role from Lost for this show. Exact same attitude.
Pretty stupid, I'd say, for the Miles Mob to head straight for where they know the bad people are going to be (i.e., the Rebel camps). I realize this is because they are "good" and want to help, want to stop the bad guys from killing all the good ones. But how to do that if you're dead too? No one seems to be thinking things through very well. As viewers we're supposed to root for them, heart over head, even as they follow their hearts . . . This is, I suppose, what separates these good guys from the rational, unfeeling bad ones. The good guys only kill when there is no other choice. The bad guys kills "preemptively" and often delight in it besides.
But I am not connecting with these good guy characters. And since my heart isn't in it with them, my head only continues to point out how dumb they act and react to things.
In fact, the bad guys—Bass Monroe, Major Neville—are far more engaging than any of the good crowd. It's easier to connect to them because they are more complex and more interesting. Not in a way that makes you want to side with them, but you'd rather watch them than Miles and Friends.
Neville's son Jason breaks with his father by disagreeing with the butchering of Rebels. He runs off to warn Charlie that the choppers are coming. But instead of running, hiding, the Rebels decide to (title check!) take a stand. (Again, like the Stephen King novel. Also: Randall. These writers really like Stephen King, I think.)
Speaking of Randall—remember him? from when Rachel and her husband took on a project from the government? and now he has Grace? (oh, and Colm Feore was in that Stephen King miniseries)—Rachel and Miles go to one of her ex-associates (John) for help, but he alerts Randall to their presence. It turns out to be not much of a plot point, however, because Miles and Rachel escape without too much trouble. And they get some bazookas while they're at it.
Danny uses said bazookas to good effect against the choppers when they come against the Rebels. Alas
[SPOILER ALERT]
the choppers manage to cut Danny down, sending Rachel on a self-flagellation bender while Charlie merely redoubles her determination to fight against Monroe.
Randall drives (yes, drives) with John to offer Monroe his services . . .
And Rachel removes a blinking light from Danny's corpse (though, seriously, the effects were weak because it didn't even look like real skin she was cutting into) . . . We can, one guesses, draw some kind of line between this light and the unique operation Danny had as a child.
Previews of coming weeks suggest, too, that someone has Daniel Faraday's notebook.
No Girls Allowed (Female Television Writers, or a Lack Thereof)
People have started sending me links to this article by The Guardian about the lack of female writers for shows like Doctor Who. "Why haven't you written for Doctor Who yet? Or Sherlock?" I get asked that all the time.
Look, it's not for lack of trying on my side. You can say, "Maybe you're not good enough," and maybe that's true, except I've done pretty well elsewhere. And I'd say Moffat's track record (or lack thereof) speaks for itself. ::shrug::
The UK broadcast system in general, I've found, is not female friendly, the US system only slightly more so. But especially in the UK, it is a very incestuous grouping of men who collaborate and are tightly armed against anyone new coming in, particularly women. You'll see the same names over and over again in the credits (and often the same faces across a handful of shows as the actors also benefit from this knot). It's a nasty little web. And until some kind of action is taken to dissolve that, it doesn't look to change any time soon.
But maybe I should try to be more sympathetic and understanding. After all, there may be real psychological trauma involved here. Maybe this is just a group of overgrown nerds who find girls just as scary now as they did in grade school. More so, even, since we're bigger now than we used to be. Or, on the flip side, maybe this is their revenge against all the girls who rejected them in grade school. Who knows? But whether driven by fear or spite, the result is the same: No Girls Allowed.
Look, it's not for lack of trying on my side. You can say, "Maybe you're not good enough," and maybe that's true, except I've done pretty well elsewhere. And I'd say Moffat's track record (or lack thereof) speaks for itself. ::shrug::
The UK broadcast system in general, I've found, is not female friendly, the US system only slightly more so. But especially in the UK, it is a very incestuous grouping of men who collaborate and are tightly armed against anyone new coming in, particularly women. You'll see the same names over and over again in the credits (and often the same faces across a handful of shows as the actors also benefit from this knot). It's a nasty little web. And until some kind of action is taken to dissolve that, it doesn't look to change any time soon.
But maybe I should try to be more sympathetic and understanding. After all, there may be real psychological trauma involved here. Maybe this is just a group of overgrown nerds who find girls just as scary now as they did in grade school. More so, even, since we're bigger now than we used to be. Or, on the flip side, maybe this is their revenge against all the girls who rejected them in grade school. Who knows? But whether driven by fear or spite, the result is the same: No Girls Allowed.
3.26.2013
Television: Smash, "The Bells & Whistles"
When last we left our starlets, Karen had ankled Bombshell to move on to Hit List and Ivy's Liaisons had crashed and burned, leaving her free to return to play Marilyn.
In a contrast of directing styles, in rehearsal Derek tells Jimmy how to act and react while Tom throws open the doors by allowing his actors to make suggestions for each of their characters. Neither of these styles is working.
Oh, and Sam (that flame of Tom's that I was wondering about a couple weeks ago) has returned. Tom wants to find him a part in Bombshell but all the parts are taken. And then—miracle!—as Tom is searching for a break in Act Two, he pulls out an old musical number he'd been playing around with as potentially part of some other show, and Sam puts on a show of his own à la Nat King Cole. Tom, in a directorial decision, immediately inserts the number into the show, which riles both Julia and Eileen. And turns off a major Arts Editor who has come to see a preview.
Derek is having his own brand of troubles trying to make Hit List fancier and more upscale by bringing in big LED screens and technology. But pretty much everyone else thinks it's the wrong direction for the show.
So Tom is too nice and Derek is too mean. Where's the just right?
Derek steps back and leans on choreography instead of, you know, sets by making a pack of dancers into "obstacles." Jimmy mostly makes ridiculous faces while singing.
Oh, and Julia . . . Who has lost Peter and now is dealing with Scott who, by coincidence, is the theater manager (? truthfully, I'm not clear who or what Scott is) for the place putting on Hit List. Wow. Out of all the theaters in New York, and all the people who might be working at this one, it's the guy Julia screwed over fifteen years ago! In a plot point no one cares about, Julia and Scott have a confrontation then make up.
Sassy roommate's name happens to be Anna. She wants the role as "Diva" in Hit List. So it's her turn to put on a song and dance in order to convince Derek she's right for the part.
And Eileen wrangles an agreement from Ivy's mother to play a role in Bombshell. That will be fun.
Despite Derek's continuous efforts to detach Karen from Jimmy and vice versa, the episode ends with Jimmy coming up to Karen's apartment. I wish I could see/feel any kind of chemistry here, but there's none. Maybe this is because I can't see why anyone would like Jimmy to begin with; certainly I can't figure out why anyone would choose him over Derek (though I'll concede the awkwardness of sleeping with one's director).
Considering Debra Messing has now signed to shoot a CBS pilot, one can more or less assume Smash will not see a third season. And if next week's previews were anything to gauge by, there's a good reason for that. While I do enjoy the show, it really reaches for its drama. Ooooh, Karen's dad might catch her with a boy in her apartment? What is she, sixteen? Oh, and Jimmy's dealer comes looking for some money Jimmy owes him? If I cared at all about Jimmy . . . But no, even if I did, this device would be trite and forced. I feel like, when there's dialogue like, "Do you like me? . . . No, I mean do you like me?" that the show isn't sure who its audience is. High schoolers who are staying up late? Grown ups who can't be bothered with Glee? Or, based on the ratings, almost no one.
Last week Smash could have ended with everyone satisfied. But now it seems we are to be subjected to the strangled mess that will be the end of the season—and the show.
In a contrast of directing styles, in rehearsal Derek tells Jimmy how to act and react while Tom throws open the doors by allowing his actors to make suggestions for each of their characters. Neither of these styles is working.
Oh, and Sam (that flame of Tom's that I was wondering about a couple weeks ago) has returned. Tom wants to find him a part in Bombshell but all the parts are taken. And then—miracle!—as Tom is searching for a break in Act Two, he pulls out an old musical number he'd been playing around with as potentially part of some other show, and Sam puts on a show of his own à la Nat King Cole. Tom, in a directorial decision, immediately inserts the number into the show, which riles both Julia and Eileen. And turns off a major Arts Editor who has come to see a preview.
Derek is having his own brand of troubles trying to make Hit List fancier and more upscale by bringing in big LED screens and technology. But pretty much everyone else thinks it's the wrong direction for the show.
So Tom is too nice and Derek is too mean. Where's the just right?
Derek steps back and leans on choreography instead of, you know, sets by making a pack of dancers into "obstacles." Jimmy mostly makes ridiculous faces while singing.
Oh, and Julia . . . Who has lost Peter and now is dealing with Scott who, by coincidence, is the theater manager (? truthfully, I'm not clear who or what Scott is) for the place putting on Hit List. Wow. Out of all the theaters in New York, and all the people who might be working at this one, it's the guy Julia screwed over fifteen years ago! In a plot point no one cares about, Julia and Scott have a confrontation then make up.
Sassy roommate's name happens to be Anna. She wants the role as "Diva" in Hit List. So it's her turn to put on a song and dance in order to convince Derek she's right for the part.
And Eileen wrangles an agreement from Ivy's mother to play a role in Bombshell. That will be fun.
Despite Derek's continuous efforts to detach Karen from Jimmy and vice versa, the episode ends with Jimmy coming up to Karen's apartment. I wish I could see/feel any kind of chemistry here, but there's none. Maybe this is because I can't see why anyone would like Jimmy to begin with; certainly I can't figure out why anyone would choose him over Derek (though I'll concede the awkwardness of sleeping with one's director).
Considering Debra Messing has now signed to shoot a CBS pilot, one can more or less assume Smash will not see a third season. And if next week's previews were anything to gauge by, there's a good reason for that. While I do enjoy the show, it really reaches for its drama. Ooooh, Karen's dad might catch her with a boy in her apartment? What is she, sixteen? Oh, and Jimmy's dealer comes looking for some money Jimmy owes him? If I cared at all about Jimmy . . . But no, even if I did, this device would be trite and forced. I feel like, when there's dialogue like, "Do you like me? . . . No, I mean do you like me?" that the show isn't sure who its audience is. High schoolers who are staying up late? Grown ups who can't be bothered with Glee? Or, based on the ratings, almost no one.
Last week Smash could have ended with everyone satisfied. But now it seems we are to be subjected to the strangled mess that will be the end of the season—and the show.
Books: Official Release of The K-Pro
Cross posted from PepperWords
The big day has arrived! You can now get your copy of The K-Pro in a variety of formats:
Or read the first chapter for free here!
Andra Martineau is no ordinary young woman. She's a Klêidouchos Propylaia (K-Pro for short), which means she has the unique ability to help certain people get exactly what they want. And Andra is good at her job—her clients have gone on to become a veritable who's who of the rich and famous.
David Styles is an up-and-coming actor with everything going for him: looks, talent, and countless beautiful women vying for his attention. But when Andra turns up in his bed demanding to know what he wants, his perfect world starts to spiral out of control. And it's not just his reputation on the line—what David doesn't know can certainly harm him, in ways he couldn't possibly begin to imagine.
With the help of David's incorrigible costar, Andra begins to realize not only her own true nature, but David's hidden identity as well. Andra is forced to battle not only her attraction to David (and she never gets involved with clients), but the being within him that wants to take away everything she holds dear. As David continues to lose himself to the strengthening form within him, Andra navigates the jealousies of the film's director and David's would-be paramour in an effort to save him. She can make others' wishes come true . . . But can she grant her own?
Funny, readable, and populated with a host of entertaining personalities, The K-Pro is a fast-paced contemporary fantasy with a touch of romance.
So far the reviews have been good, too:
Random Trivia: The K-Pro is dedicated to Benedict [Cumberbatch] because he was my original inspiration for the character of David Styles.
*signed copies will be available through Tintagel's Gate
The big day has arrived! You can now get your copy of The K-Pro in a variety of formats:
Or read the first chapter for free here!
Andra Martineau is no ordinary young woman. She's a Klêidouchos Propylaia (K-Pro for short), which means she has the unique ability to help certain people get exactly what they want. And Andra is good at her job—her clients have gone on to become a veritable who's who of the rich and famous.
David Styles is an up-and-coming actor with everything going for him: looks, talent, and countless beautiful women vying for his attention. But when Andra turns up in his bed demanding to know what he wants, his perfect world starts to spiral out of control. And it's not just his reputation on the line—what David doesn't know can certainly harm him, in ways he couldn't possibly begin to imagine.
With the help of David's incorrigible costar, Andra begins to realize not only her own true nature, but David's hidden identity as well. Andra is forced to battle not only her attraction to David (and she never gets involved with clients), but the being within him that wants to take away everything she holds dear. As David continues to lose himself to the strengthening form within him, Andra navigates the jealousies of the film's director and David's would-be paramour in an effort to save him. She can make others' wishes come true . . . But can she grant her own?
Funny, readable, and populated with a host of entertaining personalities, The K-Pro is a fast-paced contemporary fantasy with a touch of romance.
So far the reviews have been good, too:
"I’d recommend “The K-Pro” to readers of contemporary fiction whether or not they’re fans of fantasy—this isn’t fantasy in the “quest through a made-up world” sense, but in the sense that it takes our own world and douses it in a little magic. This is a charming, well-written and well-plotted book that makes me look forward to more by this author." –Erica Lucas
"This novel has everything that you want in a good fantasy novel . . . The characters are easy to fall in love with." –J. HollisterAnd once you've bought your copy of The K-Pro, please hop over to Christine Rains' blog. She's helping me celebrate this release by hosting an article I've written about my adventures in self-publishing. It's been quite the learning curve, but it helps to have a marketer in the family. Still, even if you don't have personal access to a marketing guru, I give a few tips for self-publishing success. So go take a look!
Random Trivia: The K-Pro is dedicated to Benedict [Cumberbatch] because he was my original inspiration for the character of David Styles.
*signed copies will be available through Tintagel's Gate
3.24.2013
I'm Still Mad At You, Variety
Remember when I told you how your new site sucks?
Your response has been two-fold. (1) You've opted to cease publishing the daily paper version of your magazine. (2) In your final print edition you put in a little how-to for your new site.
Guess what? That didn't make things any better.
You wrote about how your redesign makes things easier. For whom? What your redesign does is make things busier and uglier. You've got three columns of varying sizes going down the page, and then those are sometimes cut across by horizontal columns . . . It's a basket-weave mishmash of information.
Oh! But I'm supposed to use these little navigation buttons at the top of the screen. Considering there's so little organization to the content of the "front page" of your site, one would think clicking over to the section one wants to read about would make things easier. But if I click on the + one thing happens, and if I double click on the text something else happens. How fun. By which I mean "obnoxious."
What about VScore? So, you know, I can get that data I used to be able to get right on the front page when I came to the site? Your how-to tells me this is where to go for ratings and such. Except when I click on it, all I get is "Coming Soon . . ." How soon is soon? Things move fast in Hollywood, and numbers are key, but apparently VScore is still waiting for a greenlight. I give it a MeScore of F.
Yes, yes, I do realize that the far right of the front page has some box office info. Some being the key qualifier here.
I'd say I'm averse to change except I'm usually quite adaptable. It's when the changes are for the worse that I get grumpy. And if I, a 30-some-year-old, finds navigating your site to be the online equivalent of hacking through a jungle with a blunt machete, I'm pretty sure the old guys in the executive suites hate it just as much if not more.
Except they probably have interns to find that info for them.
So hey, Variety: I and the interns all hate you right now. Just sayin'.
Your response has been two-fold. (1) You've opted to cease publishing the daily paper version of your magazine. (2) In your final print edition you put in a little how-to for your new site.
Guess what? That didn't make things any better.
You wrote about how your redesign makes things easier. For whom? What your redesign does is make things busier and uglier. You've got three columns of varying sizes going down the page, and then those are sometimes cut across by horizontal columns . . . It's a basket-weave mishmash of information.
Oh! But I'm supposed to use these little navigation buttons at the top of the screen. Considering there's so little organization to the content of the "front page" of your site, one would think clicking over to the section one wants to read about would make things easier. But if I click on the + one thing happens, and if I double click on the text something else happens. How fun. By which I mean "obnoxious."
What about VScore? So, you know, I can get that data I used to be able to get right on the front page when I came to the site? Your how-to tells me this is where to go for ratings and such. Except when I click on it, all I get is "Coming Soon . . ." How soon is soon? Things move fast in Hollywood, and numbers are key, but apparently VScore is still waiting for a greenlight. I give it a MeScore of F.
Yes, yes, I do realize that the far right of the front page has some box office info. Some being the key qualifier here.
I'd say I'm averse to change except I'm usually quite adaptable. It's when the changes are for the worse that I get grumpy. And if I, a 30-some-year-old, finds navigating your site to be the online equivalent of hacking through a jungle with a blunt machete, I'm pretty sure the old guys in the executive suites hate it just as much if not more.
Except they probably have interns to find that info for them.
So hey, Variety: I and the interns all hate you right now. Just sayin'.
Movies: Les Misérables
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway
Directed By: Tom Hooper
Written By: William Nicholson, Alain Boublil, Claude-Michel Schönberg, Herbert Kretzmer (screenplay); Alain Boublil & Claude-Michel Schönberg (musical); Victor Hugo (novel)
Universal, 2012
PG-13; 158 min
4.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Let me start by saying I've never seen the musical.
As a freshman in Honors English Lit, we were required to read the novel (unabridged), and I hated it, so I steadfastly have avoided seeing the stage version. My thinking always having been, God, why put myself through it again?
I have many friends in theatre, and many who love Les Miz. But no arguments they could make in favor ever swayed me.
Now, though, having seen the film . . . I might like to see it on stage.
So what convinced me to see the movie if I hated the book and wouldn't go see the musical? Honestly, the trailers I saw last year made me want to try it. And then it kept winning awards, so I figured I really had to see it then.
I had managed over the years to forget (or block) most of the subtleties of the story. I remembered that Jean Valjean got thrown in prison for stealing bread, and I remembered he came out and made good for himself and adopted Cosette. And that he was still being pursued by Javert, though I couldn't remember why exactly. (I also remembered that one of the school projects regarding the book had us casting a potential film, and my group had chosen Patrick Stewart for Jean Valjean. But Jackman was good, too.)
Somehow, though, I'd managed to forget the whole bit with the Revolution (though I knew the story took place during that time) and the barricade and Marius and so on. And really, that was the least interesting bit of the film, too, though I understand that on stage the production is amazing.
Truth is, Les Misérables is pretty depressing. Not because of the central story, which (without giving too much away) leaves a viewer with hope and a bit of faith—something I don't really remember feeling when having read the book, but then again we've also just seen how I don't remember a huge chunk of the story either—but the setting, which for Hugo was the world as he lived it, was a bit dismal. I mostly sat through the film realizing how comfortable I am in my life, and being grateful I don't have to worry whether or not I can feed my children. By whatever Providence, I was lucky or blessed enough to be born and raised, and to live in a country—and in a strata—that at least has enough. And there are still such huge parts of the world, and also people right here in my own nation, who are not so lucky.
In that sense, then, Les Miz can make the viewer a bit uncomfortable (assuming the viewer is at all introspective and/or self-aware). That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's also not why most people go to see a movie or musical.
Of course, if they're going to see something that in effect is named "The Miserable Ones," they've probably asked for it.
The film itself, then, is quite an accomplishment. Mostly very beautifully done, though the matte paintings in the background were a tad distracting. The singing was . . . uneven. I wanted Javert to be more forceful. I felt like Russell Crowe couldn't quite commit himself to playing the role of "bad guy." But the thing about Javert as a character is, he doesn't think he's the bad guy. Not until the end. He thinks he's the hero. So I wanted more conviction from Crowe, particularly when singing those solo numbers.
Jackman did a lovely job, and Hathaway owned her few minutes on screen. I was less impressed with Seyfried and Redmayne as Cosette and Marius.
I think themes of faith in God (Valjean) and faith in the law of man (Javert) are interesting ones to explore. But I also think the reduction here of the complexities of the French Revolution are kind of a shame. There was so much more to it than simple class warfare. I won't go into a history lesson here, but my father's family left France just in time to keep their heads from getting cut off, so . . . I'll admit I may have some personal bias in the issue.
Also interesting is how Marius drops his revolutionary ideas and goes back to being happily wealthy once all his friends die and he has a rich bride on his arm. Um . . . So faith, yes, but also money. After all, Valjean gained his faith after the bishop was kind to him . . . But he still took the silver and used it to start a new life. The more things (and people) change, the more they stay the same, eh?
Jean Valjean was a good man to start with, trying to save his sister's son by stealing bread to keep them from starving. And he becomes a better man once he has the funds to help others more overtly. But maybe Javert isn't entirely wrong either, since Valjean does change his stripes—but only by painting over them.
I didn't mean for this write-up to become an essay, so I'll sum up by saying it was a solid movie that gives anyone with enough interest something to think about and discuss. And it was a good enough movie to somewhat diminish my early hatred for the source material.
Directed By: Tom Hooper
Written By: William Nicholson, Alain Boublil, Claude-Michel Schönberg, Herbert Kretzmer (screenplay); Alain Boublil & Claude-Michel Schönberg (musical); Victor Hugo (novel)
Universal, 2012
PG-13; 158 min
4.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Let me start by saying I've never seen the musical.
As a freshman in Honors English Lit, we were required to read the novel (unabridged), and I hated it, so I steadfastly have avoided seeing the stage version. My thinking always having been, God, why put myself through it again?
I have many friends in theatre, and many who love Les Miz. But no arguments they could make in favor ever swayed me.
Now, though, having seen the film . . . I might like to see it on stage.
So what convinced me to see the movie if I hated the book and wouldn't go see the musical? Honestly, the trailers I saw last year made me want to try it. And then it kept winning awards, so I figured I really had to see it then.
I had managed over the years to forget (or block) most of the subtleties of the story. I remembered that Jean Valjean got thrown in prison for stealing bread, and I remembered he came out and made good for himself and adopted Cosette. And that he was still being pursued by Javert, though I couldn't remember why exactly. (I also remembered that one of the school projects regarding the book had us casting a potential film, and my group had chosen Patrick Stewart for Jean Valjean. But Jackman was good, too.)
Somehow, though, I'd managed to forget the whole bit with the Revolution (though I knew the story took place during that time) and the barricade and Marius and so on. And really, that was the least interesting bit of the film, too, though I understand that on stage the production is amazing.
Truth is, Les Misérables is pretty depressing. Not because of the central story, which (without giving too much away) leaves a viewer with hope and a bit of faith—something I don't really remember feeling when having read the book, but then again we've also just seen how I don't remember a huge chunk of the story either—but the setting, which for Hugo was the world as he lived it, was a bit dismal. I mostly sat through the film realizing how comfortable I am in my life, and being grateful I don't have to worry whether or not I can feed my children. By whatever Providence, I was lucky or blessed enough to be born and raised, and to live in a country—and in a strata—that at least has enough. And there are still such huge parts of the world, and also people right here in my own nation, who are not so lucky.
In that sense, then, Les Miz can make the viewer a bit uncomfortable (assuming the viewer is at all introspective and/or self-aware). That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's also not why most people go to see a movie or musical.
Of course, if they're going to see something that in effect is named "The Miserable Ones," they've probably asked for it.
The film itself, then, is quite an accomplishment. Mostly very beautifully done, though the matte paintings in the background were a tad distracting. The singing was . . . uneven. I wanted Javert to be more forceful. I felt like Russell Crowe couldn't quite commit himself to playing the role of "bad guy." But the thing about Javert as a character is, he doesn't think he's the bad guy. Not until the end. He thinks he's the hero. So I wanted more conviction from Crowe, particularly when singing those solo numbers.
Jackman did a lovely job, and Hathaway owned her few minutes on screen. I was less impressed with Seyfried and Redmayne as Cosette and Marius.
I think themes of faith in God (Valjean) and faith in the law of man (Javert) are interesting ones to explore. But I also think the reduction here of the complexities of the French Revolution are kind of a shame. There was so much more to it than simple class warfare. I won't go into a history lesson here, but my father's family left France just in time to keep their heads from getting cut off, so . . . I'll admit I may have some personal bias in the issue.
Also interesting is how Marius drops his revolutionary ideas and goes back to being happily wealthy once all his friends die and he has a rich bride on his arm. Um . . . So faith, yes, but also money. After all, Valjean gained his faith after the bishop was kind to him . . . But he still took the silver and used it to start a new life. The more things (and people) change, the more they stay the same, eh?
Jean Valjean was a good man to start with, trying to save his sister's son by stealing bread to keep them from starving. And he becomes a better man once he has the funds to help others more overtly. But maybe Javert isn't entirely wrong either, since Valjean does change his stripes—but only by painting over them.
I didn't mean for this write-up to become an essay, so I'll sum up by saying it was a solid movie that gives anyone with enough interest something to think about and discuss. And it was a good enough movie to somewhat diminish my early hatred for the source material.
3.21.2013
Books/Blogs: St. Peter in Chains Revisited
So I've started work on the sequel to St. Peter in Chains; it will be titled St. Peter at the Gate and will pick up with Peter and Charles having settled abroad in Salzburg. More than that I can't (really, won't) tell you now.
But!
If you're really needing a fix in the meantime, Peter and Charles will be central to my A–Z Challenge in April. You can read about the Challenge, and Peter and Charles's part in it, over on PepperWords. (PepperWords will also be where I'll be posting for the Challenge, so look there, not here, come April 1st.)
But!
If you're really needing a fix in the meantime, Peter and Charles will be central to my A–Z Challenge in April. You can read about the Challenge, and Peter and Charles's part in it, over on PepperWords. (PepperWords will also be where I'll be posting for the Challenge, so look there, not here, come April 1st.)
3.19.2013
Television: Smash, "Musical Chairs"
So Derek has ankled Bombshell and is now helming Hit List. Having a bit of trouble adjusting to the much smaller scale though. You know, getting his own coffee and all.
Meanwhile, Tom is so enjoying directing Bombshell. But no one else is enjoying him directing it. Jerry again asks what the viewer is wondering: "What the hell am I watching?"
(Is this car ad part of the show?)
In a weird sort of pseudo-breakup and reconciliation, Tom courts Karen in director-to-star fashion. But let's face it: like all relationships, directors and stars have natural matches. Tom's is Ivy and Karen's is Derek. DerekVision (TM) doesn't work without Karen to spark it; she is his muse. And Tom and Ivy understand one another instinctively, while for him and Karen communication is an effort. Goes to show that the best theater shows (or movies, or TV shows) hinge on having the right chemistry between people.
Jerry is working to get Derek back as director of Bombshell while Eileen, Julia, and Meryl Streep's daughter work to get rid of Jerry.
Still, with so many pieces moving over the board, the end result continues to feel foreordained. There's really only one correct answer to this puzzle.
Liaisons is so boring, Terry and Ivy decide to spike it. This clearly gives Terry the wherewithal to go wherever he needed to go to motivate himself into putting on a decent show. Though he falls and injures himself after.
Seeing Tom and Ivy chatting after the show brings Karen the realization that everyone watching this show has known for two or three episodes at least: Ivy should be Tom's Marilyn and she [Karen] should move on to Hit List.
In short: Tom & Ivy = Broadway, Derek & Karen = more rock 'n' roll.
And Eileen & Co. confront Jerry with all his perfidies and twist him into submission.
One supposes the writers and showrunner knew odds were even that Smash would end this season. So here is a tidy package; the show might end with this very episode and be done.
But it's not quite done. There's a rumor NBC may move it to Saturdays—the place shows go to die. I'll be watching until the end, and I'll miss it when it's gone. In a viewing schedule heavy with drama, I find Smash to be my lift. It's also a drama, and I do watch comedies like Modern Family, but Smash fills a spot that no other show does. It is a strange and rare animal. Uneven, to be sure, but there's nothing else quite like it on television. And once it's extinct, it seems unlikely there will be more of this breed any time soon.
Meanwhile, Tom is so enjoying directing Bombshell. But no one else is enjoying him directing it. Jerry again asks what the viewer is wondering: "What the hell am I watching?"
(Is this car ad part of the show?)
In a weird sort of pseudo-breakup and reconciliation, Tom courts Karen in director-to-star fashion. But let's face it: like all relationships, directors and stars have natural matches. Tom's is Ivy and Karen's is Derek. DerekVision (TM) doesn't work without Karen to spark it; she is his muse. And Tom and Ivy understand one another instinctively, while for him and Karen communication is an effort. Goes to show that the best theater shows (or movies, or TV shows) hinge on having the right chemistry between people.
Jerry is working to get Derek back as director of Bombshell while Eileen, Julia, and Meryl Streep's daughter work to get rid of Jerry.
Still, with so many pieces moving over the board, the end result continues to feel foreordained. There's really only one correct answer to this puzzle.
Liaisons is so boring, Terry and Ivy decide to spike it. This clearly gives Terry the wherewithal to go wherever he needed to go to motivate himself into putting on a decent show. Though he falls and injures himself after.
Seeing Tom and Ivy chatting after the show brings Karen the realization that everyone watching this show has known for two or three episodes at least: Ivy should be Tom's Marilyn and she [Karen] should move on to Hit List.
In short: Tom & Ivy = Broadway, Derek & Karen = more rock 'n' roll.
And Eileen & Co. confront Jerry with all his perfidies and twist him into submission.
One supposes the writers and showrunner knew odds were even that Smash would end this season. So here is a tidy package; the show might end with this very episode and be done.
But it's not quite done. There's a rumor NBC may move it to Saturdays—the place shows go to die. I'll be watching until the end, and I'll miss it when it's gone. In a viewing schedule heavy with drama, I find Smash to be my lift. It's also a drama, and I do watch comedies like Modern Family, but Smash fills a spot that no other show does. It is a strange and rare animal. Uneven, to be sure, but there's nothing else quite like it on television. And once it's extinct, it seems unlikely there will be more of this breed any time soon.
Food: Big Red Soda
It's that time of year again. The time when I order copious amounts of Big Red and stock my fridge and cabinets. Because while they have a lot of great stuff out here in California, one thing they don't have is Big Red.
In my life, I've never met another person who drinks Big Red. I'd say it's an acquired taste except I've loved it for as long as I can remember, yet no one in my family will touch it, so I have no idea how I acquired the taste for it. Maybe just from growing up in Texas and Louisiana, which is Big Red's natural habitat. I used to always grab a bottle of it for long car trips. Or freeze it at home for homemade slush.
Once at orientation for uni, I had a Big Red and my bunkmate (who was from Boston) asked if she could try a sip. She hated it. Too sweet, I think, for some tastes.
Big Red touts itself as a "red cream soda" but it doesn't taste at all like those caramel-colored creams. I'd say the closest description would be "liquified bubble gum." And since I love bubble gum, and all things of that flavor, Big Red is a win in my book.
Alas, it's difficult to find outside its immediate region, so I must resort each spring to hoarding it as if provisioning against some kind of cataclysm. Even so, it won't last the summer. But that's fine. I'll get my fix and then go back to Dr Pepper (which at least has a wider reach). And when next spring rolls around, it will be time for another huge order of Big Red.
In my life, I've never met another person who drinks Big Red. I'd say it's an acquired taste except I've loved it for as long as I can remember, yet no one in my family will touch it, so I have no idea how I acquired the taste for it. Maybe just from growing up in Texas and Louisiana, which is Big Red's natural habitat. I used to always grab a bottle of it for long car trips. Or freeze it at home for homemade slush.
Once at orientation for uni, I had a Big Red and my bunkmate (who was from Boston) asked if she could try a sip. She hated it. Too sweet, I think, for some tastes.
Big Red touts itself as a "red cream soda" but it doesn't taste at all like those caramel-colored creams. I'd say the closest description would be "liquified bubble gum." And since I love bubble gum, and all things of that flavor, Big Red is a win in my book.
Alas, it's difficult to find outside its immediate region, so I must resort each spring to hoarding it as if provisioning against some kind of cataclysm. Even so, it won't last the summer. But that's fine. I'll get my fix and then go back to Dr Pepper (which at least has a wider reach). And when next spring rolls around, it will be time for another huge order of Big Red.
3.15.2013
Television: Bates Motel, "First You Dream, Then You Die"
Tense but not (so far anyway) very creepy, Bates Motel seems to aim for the whole Twin Peaks and/or Happy Town vibe.
Here is Norman Bates at age 17, living with his mother Norma (geez, way to lump on the whole tied-to-the-apron themes, there). His older brother is absent, and his father has just died. Norma sees her widowhood as a chance at a fresh start—"second chance" and "fresh start" seem to be her favorite phrases, and here again the writers go a bit far in repeating them—and so buys a rickety motel and its attendant home, made so famous in Hitchcock's Psycho.
But this is not 1960. Despite what seems to be a conscious attempt to evoke that era, such as Norma's Donna Reed-like dresses and a surfeit of cardigans, the kids all have iPhones too. Yet the juxtaposition is not as jarring as one might expect. In fact, the art direction here is quite lovely.
Not so lovely is the previous owner's threats to Norma and her son, and he makes good on them in a somewhat graphic rape scene that leads to murder.
As I said, the tension is thick. Vera Farmiga as Norma does a solid job of emotionally manipulating her son, and Freddie Highmore as Norman hits a nice medium of craving his mother's approval while simultaneously yearning for independence. His is a soft and squishy exterior, as in the kind of kid that might usually get teased or bullied, with a steel rod core.
Meanwhile, the episode also strongly suggests strange things going on in the town, hence the Twin Peaks/Happy Town comparison. (Not quite crazy enough to be David Lynch quality, but it may yet move in that direction.)
While I'm not sold on the high school hijinx plot line in which every girl in town makes nice with Norman, on the whole the premiere makes me willing to give the show another outing.
Here is Norman Bates at age 17, living with his mother Norma (geez, way to lump on the whole tied-to-the-apron themes, there). His older brother is absent, and his father has just died. Norma sees her widowhood as a chance at a fresh start—"second chance" and "fresh start" seem to be her favorite phrases, and here again the writers go a bit far in repeating them—and so buys a rickety motel and its attendant home, made so famous in Hitchcock's Psycho.
But this is not 1960. Despite what seems to be a conscious attempt to evoke that era, such as Norma's Donna Reed-like dresses and a surfeit of cardigans, the kids all have iPhones too. Yet the juxtaposition is not as jarring as one might expect. In fact, the art direction here is quite lovely.
Not so lovely is the previous owner's threats to Norma and her son, and he makes good on them in a somewhat graphic rape scene that leads to murder.
As I said, the tension is thick. Vera Farmiga as Norma does a solid job of emotionally manipulating her son, and Freddie Highmore as Norman hits a nice medium of craving his mother's approval while simultaneously yearning for independence. His is a soft and squishy exterior, as in the kind of kid that might usually get teased or bullied, with a steel rod core.
Meanwhile, the episode also strongly suggests strange things going on in the town, hence the Twin Peaks/Happy Town comparison. (Not quite crazy enough to be David Lynch quality, but it may yet move in that direction.)
While I'm not sold on the high school hijinx plot line in which every girl in town makes nice with Norman, on the whole the premiere makes me willing to give the show another outing.
3.14.2013
Television: Elementary, "Deja Vu All Over Again"
Holmes shoves Watson out of the nest by giving her sole responsibility for finding a missing woman.
Background: Holmes's father asks Holmes to help an attorney, who in turn wants Holmes to help his assistant (Rebecca). It is Rebecca's sister Callie who is missing and has been for six months; Rebecca thinks Callie's husband Drew may be to blame. (This made me wonder whether the writers were thinking of Drew Peterson when they wrote the episode.)
Meanwhile, Holmes develops an interest in an old case in which a woman was first given flowers by a stranger on a subway platform, then was pushed in front of the oncoming train by him. Callie mentions the incident in her farewell video to her husband . . . But why was Callie so hung up on it?
After interviewing Drew, Watson is convinced he killed his wife. Holmes moves things along by sending Drew an anonymous text message to "gaslight" him.
C Plot: Watson has been neglecting some of her old friends and must make time to see them. They stage an intervention, having heard Watson has become a private detective. With her drug addict client for a mentor. (Okay, yes, when you put it that way, it does sound a little crazy.)
Watson and Alfredo (that's a story from a previous episode, but in short 'Fredo is Holmes's sponsor) follow Drew to a storage facility where he removes an heirloom trunk belonging to his missing wife—one he had previously lied about having. Watson gets caught trying to check the trunk for Callie's body.
Between her friends' reaction and landing herself in jail, Watson begins to think she isn't cut out to be Holmes's protégée after all. But while visiting Rebecca to apologize for being "too aggressive" with the investigation, she sees a photograph of Callie in a jacket matching the description of the subway pusher.
So now the reason for Callie's fixation on the crime seems clear.
In a clever twist (finally! good job writers!) it turns out that Callie's video was made more than a year before. But in order to make it look once again like his wife had left him, Drew was forced to re-enact an old subway tragedy, and so became the subway pusher.
The one problem I do have with this twist is that it is somewhat unfair to the audience because viewers have not been given all the information (the earlier subway tragedy story) and therefore are unable to put together the entire story themselves.
Too, it does tend to be glaringly obvious when the writers use things like Drew Peterson and subway pushing, or other relatively fresh headlines, as springboards for stories. I find it a bit distracting.
Meanwhile, the introduction of one of Watson's friends (Em . . . Which is almost like M . . .) as a journalist has the potential of adding a new layer of interest to future proceedings. Assuming Watson ever has the time for her.
Watson's eventual victory appears to scrub her initial misgivings. What I would have liked to have seen is perhaps a little more concern on Holmes's part that he might lose his sidekick. I think this project of teaching Watson to be a detective has revived him somewhat, and it would be intriguing to explore the other side of that, i.e., what might happen if he were to lose this particular lifeline. Or if it were even seriously threatened.
This was a good episode, but all the character development seemed very superficial. Watson's concerns were over almost before they began. By the end of the show she was happily changing her online profile to read "Consulting Detective." So while the plot(s) were pretty solid, the interplay and emotions were perfunctory at best, and Elementary really does better when delving deeper into souls than storage bins.
Note: Next new episode isn't until April 4. They seem to be spacing them out and saving up the bulk of remaining eps for May sweeps.
Background: Holmes's father asks Holmes to help an attorney, who in turn wants Holmes to help his assistant (Rebecca). It is Rebecca's sister Callie who is missing and has been for six months; Rebecca thinks Callie's husband Drew may be to blame. (This made me wonder whether the writers were thinking of Drew Peterson when they wrote the episode.)
Meanwhile, Holmes develops an interest in an old case in which a woman was first given flowers by a stranger on a subway platform, then was pushed in front of the oncoming train by him. Callie mentions the incident in her farewell video to her husband . . . But why was Callie so hung up on it?
After interviewing Drew, Watson is convinced he killed his wife. Holmes moves things along by sending Drew an anonymous text message to "gaslight" him.
C Plot: Watson has been neglecting some of her old friends and must make time to see them. They stage an intervention, having heard Watson has become a private detective. With her drug addict client for a mentor. (Okay, yes, when you put it that way, it does sound a little crazy.)
Watson and Alfredo (that's a story from a previous episode, but in short 'Fredo is Holmes's sponsor) follow Drew to a storage facility where he removes an heirloom trunk belonging to his missing wife—one he had previously lied about having. Watson gets caught trying to check the trunk for Callie's body.
Between her friends' reaction and landing herself in jail, Watson begins to think she isn't cut out to be Holmes's protégée after all. But while visiting Rebecca to apologize for being "too aggressive" with the investigation, she sees a photograph of Callie in a jacket matching the description of the subway pusher.
So now the reason for Callie's fixation on the crime seems clear.
In a clever twist (finally! good job writers!) it turns out that Callie's video was made more than a year before. But in order to make it look once again like his wife had left him, Drew was forced to re-enact an old subway tragedy, and so became the subway pusher.
The one problem I do have with this twist is that it is somewhat unfair to the audience because viewers have not been given all the information (the earlier subway tragedy story) and therefore are unable to put together the entire story themselves.
Too, it does tend to be glaringly obvious when the writers use things like Drew Peterson and subway pushing, or other relatively fresh headlines, as springboards for stories. I find it a bit distracting.
Meanwhile, the introduction of one of Watson's friends (Em . . . Which is almost like M . . .) as a journalist has the potential of adding a new layer of interest to future proceedings. Assuming Watson ever has the time for her.
Watson's eventual victory appears to scrub her initial misgivings. What I would have liked to have seen is perhaps a little more concern on Holmes's part that he might lose his sidekick. I think this project of teaching Watson to be a detective has revived him somewhat, and it would be intriguing to explore the other side of that, i.e., what might happen if he were to lose this particular lifeline. Or if it were even seriously threatened.
This was a good episode, but all the character development seemed very superficial. Watson's concerns were over almost before they began. By the end of the show she was happily changing her online profile to read "Consulting Detective." So while the plot(s) were pretty solid, the interplay and emotions were perfunctory at best, and Elementary really does better when delving deeper into souls than storage bins.
Note: Next new episode isn't until April 4. They seem to be spacing them out and saving up the bulk of remaining eps for May sweeps.
Books: The 13th Floor Series by Christine Rains
I have posted past reviews of some of the earlier installments in this series: "The Marquis" and "The Alpha." Since then two more have been released, so I'll remark upon them together here.
"The Dragonslayer" was a good one; I liked the modern-day knight theme. I always was more of a girl who liked the chivalrous types over the bad boys. I found the reporter a bit obnoxious, but maybe that's just because I was siding with Xan (the titular dragonslayer), and he also found her somewhat irritating. I didn't quite get the chemistry between them, but the story as a whole was pretty good.
But "The Harbinger," which was just released this week—this one is my favorite so far in the series. Using a mythical harpy as a heroine? That definitely beats the usual stuff out there. And again, Rains supplies a nice guy as the love interest, which is simply very much my speed.
I'd say on the whole the series gets better with each new addition. Two more to come, in April and May respectively. Something to look forward to.
"The Dragonslayer" was a good one; I liked the modern-day knight theme. I always was more of a girl who liked the chivalrous types over the bad boys. I found the reporter a bit obnoxious, but maybe that's just because I was siding with Xan (the titular dragonslayer), and he also found her somewhat irritating. I didn't quite get the chemistry between them, but the story as a whole was pretty good.
But "The Harbinger," which was just released this week—this one is my favorite so far in the series. Using a mythical harpy as a heroine? That definitely beats the usual stuff out there. And again, Rains supplies a nice guy as the love interest, which is simply very much my speed.
I'd say on the whole the series gets better with each new addition. Two more to come, in April and May respectively. Something to look forward to.
3.13.2013
Kids & Television
I received an e-mail asking if this might interest me, and I have to say, just based on personal experience, I can see a real difference in my kids based on what they watch on any given day.
Hardly empirical evidence, I realize, but here's what happens in my house: My kids get up, and they know how to turn on the television BUT they can't change the channel because we keep the remotes up on a shelf (and we're way past the days of hand dials). So every night I make sure the channel is set to PBS Kids. Or sometimes Disney Jr.
And do I miss a few nights? Yes.
One morning I discovered the kids watching HGTV. They were weirdly mesmerized. And then they all went off to draw their own versions of a "dream house." Not so bad.
And PBS Kids is fine, and Disney Jr. is, well, okay (but never my first choice).
And then there are channels like Hub. Those shows are so cute, I totally get it, and my kids just love My Little Pony and Pound Puppies. But the commercials . . . I can't go to a store without my kids pointing out stuff they saw on commercials on The Hub.
Do I feel guilty that my kids watch a lot of TV? Well . . . What's "a lot" I guess is my real question? I watched plenty of television growing up. Loved Pinwheel, Danger Mouse, all that stuff Nickelodeon imported. But I was also allowed to watch Moonlighting and British comedies and Dukes of Hazard and Love Boat . . . My kids don't stay up and watch adult TV. And they watch a lot less TV than I ever did. I had my own television set in my room; we have only one television set in the whole house.
I don't know how much TV my kids watch compared to other people's. TV seems to have become a guilty secret that parents aren't willing to admit to. Like a drug they slip their kids from time to time. No one really talks about it except to say they never, or at least almost never . . . Except maybe when they're sick . . . Or when mom or dad really needs ten uninterrupted minutes . . .
But hey. My kids are really smart. They have fantastic vocabularies and can carry on extremely intelligent conversations. (The pediatrician is utterly amazed at my 3-year-old's ability to express himself.) I'd like to say it's all me. That having a writer for a mother means my kids will naturally be articulate. And maybe that's part of it. But I'm kind of sure Sid the Science Kid has at least given my children something to talk about and be interested in. And I know for a fact that my 3-year-old, the one the pediatrician thinks is so amazing, has culled a lot of his expressions from Thomas the Tank Engine.
I think TV is like any candy or junk food. Everything in moderation. It's about portion control, and it's about taking in the "right" nutrients. We've all heard of kids whose parents never let them have candy, and then those kids grow up and eat nothing but cookies and become diabetic and obese (or something like that). It's the same with television. Let them have a little junk now and then, and also make sure they're digesting the good stuff. But (at the risk of upsetting some parents and/or doctors) don't abstain completely. Your kid is going to see TV eventually—at a friend's house, at the mall, wherever—so start good habits early and you won't have to worry later.
Courtesy of EducationNews.org
Hardly empirical evidence, I realize, but here's what happens in my house: My kids get up, and they know how to turn on the television BUT they can't change the channel because we keep the remotes up on a shelf (and we're way past the days of hand dials). So every night I make sure the channel is set to PBS Kids. Or sometimes Disney Jr.
And do I miss a few nights? Yes.
One morning I discovered the kids watching HGTV. They were weirdly mesmerized. And then they all went off to draw their own versions of a "dream house." Not so bad.
And PBS Kids is fine, and Disney Jr. is, well, okay (but never my first choice).
And then there are channels like Hub. Those shows are so cute, I totally get it, and my kids just love My Little Pony and Pound Puppies. But the commercials . . . I can't go to a store without my kids pointing out stuff they saw on commercials on The Hub.
Do I feel guilty that my kids watch a lot of TV? Well . . . What's "a lot" I guess is my real question? I watched plenty of television growing up. Loved Pinwheel, Danger Mouse, all that stuff Nickelodeon imported. But I was also allowed to watch Moonlighting and British comedies and Dukes of Hazard and Love Boat . . . My kids don't stay up and watch adult TV. And they watch a lot less TV than I ever did. I had my own television set in my room; we have only one television set in the whole house.
I don't know how much TV my kids watch compared to other people's. TV seems to have become a guilty secret that parents aren't willing to admit to. Like a drug they slip their kids from time to time. No one really talks about it except to say they never, or at least almost never . . . Except maybe when they're sick . . . Or when mom or dad really needs ten uninterrupted minutes . . .
But hey. My kids are really smart. They have fantastic vocabularies and can carry on extremely intelligent conversations. (The pediatrician is utterly amazed at my 3-year-old's ability to express himself.) I'd like to say it's all me. That having a writer for a mother means my kids will naturally be articulate. And maybe that's part of it. But I'm kind of sure Sid the Science Kid has at least given my children something to talk about and be interested in. And I know for a fact that my 3-year-old, the one the pediatrician thinks is so amazing, has culled a lot of his expressions from Thomas the Tank Engine.
I think TV is like any candy or junk food. Everything in moderation. It's about portion control, and it's about taking in the "right" nutrients. We've all heard of kids whose parents never let them have candy, and then those kids grow up and eat nothing but cookies and become diabetic and obese (or something like that). It's the same with television. Let them have a little junk now and then, and also make sure they're digesting the good stuff. But (at the risk of upsetting some parents and/or doctors) don't abstain completely. Your kid is going to see TV eventually—at a friend's house, at the mall, wherever—so start good habits early and you won't have to worry later.
Courtesy of EducationNews.org
3.12.2013
Television: Smash, "The Fringe"
Tom wins. (Which makes me wonder whether the writers of Smash really just needed to keep most of what had already been written.) And is Jerry speaking for viewers when he says, "There are a lot of songs . . ." And then demands cuts. (?)
And a re-workedRent Hit List is on its way to the Winter Fringe Festival. With Karen in a key role. But when Jerry finds out, he demands Karen back out of Hit List because Bombshell should be her big introduction to the world. Given an ultimatum—do you want to do Fringe or do you want to open on Broadway?—Karen ditches Hit List to predictable results (i.e., a tantrum from Jimmy).
Meanwhile, Peter works to drive a wedge between Tom and Julia by using the Bad Dialogue Generator to tell her that Bombshell no longer needs her and that Tom has already left her. Then Peter invites Julia to London.
Apparently Tom must prove his love for Julia (as a collaborator) by convincing Jerry to keep one of Julia's favorite songs. He does this by giving Karen new direction and motivation, which sets Derek's back up since, you know, he's the director. When everyone loves the new direction . . . And really, when the problems with theatre-by-committee come to the fore . . . Derek quits the show.
Oh, and Ivy's show is tanking. Until Ivy makes the workshop audience laugh. Which makes Terry insist her number be cut. But at least he's honest about his reasons: he wants to be the funniest on the stage. But Ivy's brutal honesty works for her; when she tells Terry how awful the show is, and how awful he is in it, he gives her the song back.
In a completely unnecessary, time-filling scene, Karen, wearing a dress that looks like some curtains I had when I was five, goes back to the Fringe Festival to confront Jimmy and tell him not to take his temper out on everyone else.
Derek goes to check out Hit List on its last night, and surprise! Karen is in the show! DerekVision (TM) returns! (Really, all of Smash should be in DerekVision (TM).)
[Nobody on a plane is that nice, Windows. No one gives a little kid their tablet. I don't give my own kids my tablet. And I'd feel weird if some stranger gave my kid his.]
So of course Derek ends up agreeing to direct Hit List. Jimmy will star, but Karen opts out because she's signed to Bombshell.
And Eileen, tipped off by hearsay from Karen, discovers proof of Jerry's perfidy. Then she and Julia put Tom up as director for Bombshell.
The real shame in Smash is how terribly predictable the story lines are. All my snarking aside, it's a fun show, one I look forward to each week. But I wish they'd do something really surprising. As things stand it's easy to see Karen going for Hit List and Ivy stepping back into Bombshell (since Tom is her big champion, so if he's going to direct the show . . .) The supposedly make-or-break decisions of these characters always seem predestined. There's not yet been a point at which I've really wondered what someone will do; my biggest question is usually when they'll get around to it. So I think Smash would benefit from some real turnover.
Ah, well, it really is all predetermined now. The second season wrapped filming not too long ago, and it probably won't see a third. Enjoy it while you can, friends.
And a re-worked
Meanwhile, Peter works to drive a wedge between Tom and Julia by using the Bad Dialogue Generator to tell her that Bombshell no longer needs her and that Tom has already left her. Then Peter invites Julia to London.
Apparently Tom must prove his love for Julia (as a collaborator) by convincing Jerry to keep one of Julia's favorite songs. He does this by giving Karen new direction and motivation, which sets Derek's back up since, you know, he's the director. When everyone loves the new direction . . . And really, when the problems with theatre-by-committee come to the fore . . . Derek quits the show.
Oh, and Ivy's show is tanking. Until Ivy makes the workshop audience laugh. Which makes Terry insist her number be cut. But at least he's honest about his reasons: he wants to be the funniest on the stage. But Ivy's brutal honesty works for her; when she tells Terry how awful the show is, and how awful he is in it, he gives her the song back.
In a completely unnecessary, time-filling scene, Karen, wearing a dress that looks like some curtains I had when I was five, goes back to the Fringe Festival to confront Jimmy and tell him not to take his temper out on everyone else.
Derek goes to check out Hit List on its last night, and surprise! Karen is in the show! DerekVision (TM) returns! (Really, all of Smash should be in DerekVision (TM).)
[Nobody on a plane is that nice, Windows. No one gives a little kid their tablet. I don't give my own kids my tablet. And I'd feel weird if some stranger gave my kid his.]
So of course Derek ends up agreeing to direct Hit List. Jimmy will star, but Karen opts out because she's signed to Bombshell.
And Eileen, tipped off by hearsay from Karen, discovers proof of Jerry's perfidy. Then she and Julia put Tom up as director for Bombshell.
The real shame in Smash is how terribly predictable the story lines are. All my snarking aside, it's a fun show, one I look forward to each week. But I wish they'd do something really surprising. As things stand it's easy to see Karen going for Hit List and Ivy stepping back into Bombshell (since Tom is her big champion, so if he's going to direct the show . . .) The supposedly make-or-break decisions of these characters always seem predestined. There's not yet been a point at which I've really wondered what someone will do; my biggest question is usually when they'll get around to it. So I think Smash would benefit from some real turnover.
Ah, well, it really is all predetermined now. The second season wrapped filming not too long ago, and it probably won't see a third. Enjoy it while you can, friends.
3.11.2013
Odds & Ends
One of my Sherlock Holmes stories is free on Amazon Kindle at the moment. Go get it here.
And then read my other stuff (including one other Holmes story, the novella version of my award-winning screenplay St. Peter in Chains, and the brand new and highly rated K-Pro), all of which is listed here.
And if you still want more Sherlock stuff, just for fun you can go over here.
And then read my other stuff (including one other Holmes story, the novella version of my award-winning screenplay St. Peter in Chains, and the brand new and highly rated K-Pro), all of which is listed here.
And if you still want more Sherlock stuff, just for fun you can go over here.
3.08.2013
The State of Things
So here's where I'm at:
I've been asked to pen this script, so that's a priority. Hope to have the first draft done by the end of the month.
And there's the K-Pro book launch. I'm looking over proofs for the hard copy now. (It's already on Kindle if you want to read it that way; other formats will come online on the official launch date of March 26.)
And my Sherlock script has done well in competition (finally), though it needs some rewriting . . . But since it's just a spec/writing sample, that goes to the back. (You can read a draft of it on my Stage 32 profile under Loglines & Screenplays.)
So I'm busy and not reading as much (though I have started The Dante Club and really like it, except it's giving me grotesque dreams). And shows like Elementary, which I usually cover here, have been in repeats. Though I'll go ahead and take this moment to admit I've been late to the Community party but really enjoyed last night's Thanksgiving episode.
Revolution is coming back in a couple weeks, too, and I might try to watch it. Or not.
Lots of movies I keep meaning to see. When I have time. I'll write about those when I do. Have time. And see them.
Finally, back to London in July. Looking forward to that.
So stay tuned; I do intend to keep content up here as much as possible.
I've been asked to pen this script, so that's a priority. Hope to have the first draft done by the end of the month.
And there's the K-Pro book launch. I'm looking over proofs for the hard copy now. (It's already on Kindle if you want to read it that way; other formats will come online on the official launch date of March 26.)
And my Sherlock script has done well in competition (finally), though it needs some rewriting . . . But since it's just a spec/writing sample, that goes to the back. (You can read a draft of it on my Stage 32 profile under Loglines & Screenplays.)
So I'm busy and not reading as much (though I have started The Dante Club and really like it, except it's giving me grotesque dreams). And shows like Elementary, which I usually cover here, have been in repeats. Though I'll go ahead and take this moment to admit I've been late to the Community party but really enjoyed last night's Thanksgiving episode.
Revolution is coming back in a couple weeks, too, and I might try to watch it. Or not.
Lots of movies I keep meaning to see. When I have time. I'll write about those when I do. Have time. And see them.
Finally, back to London in July. Looking forward to that.
So stay tuned; I do intend to keep content up here as much as possible.
3.06.2013
Books: The K-Pro
Early reviews count The K-Pro as a unique and fun fantasy. "[E]verything you want in a good fantasy novel" and "The characters are easy to fall in love with." Also, "left me enjoying every page."
To be clear, this is no sword-and-sorcery, high-fantasy novel. It takes place on a contemporary film set on the English coast. But it takes "movie magic" to another level.
Although the official release date is March 26, Amazon Kindle users can read it now. (Here's the UK version; other regions are also available.)
On March 26 Nook, iBooks, and Kobo readers will also be able to get The K-Pro. And we're working on a paperback as well; ideally it will be out on the 26th, too, pending the proofing process.
So go forth, read, and (hopefully) enjoy!
To be clear, this is no sword-and-sorcery, high-fantasy novel. It takes place on a contemporary film set on the English coast. But it takes "movie magic" to another level.
Although the official release date is March 26, Amazon Kindle users can read it now. (Here's the UK version; other regions are also available.)
On March 26 Nook, iBooks, and Kobo readers will also be able to get The K-Pro. And we're working on a paperback as well; ideally it will be out on the 26th, too, pending the proofing process.
So go forth, read, and (hopefully) enjoy!
3.05.2013
Television: Smash, "The Read-Through"
Now we have TomVision(TM)? Not nearly as entertaining as DerekVision(TM) though. And apparently Tom mostly envisions variations of himself, male and female, and of many different nationalities.
And in case Bombshell's read-through, er, bombs . . . Derek gets Kyle's and Jimmy's Hit List a slot in the Winter Fringe Festival. That way he won't have all his eggs in the Bombshell basket.
Meanwhile, a random guy gives Julia cause to question Peter's loyalty. The writers for this show are far from subtle about inserting plot points and exposition.
And Ivy is having trouble dealing with the fact that the lead in Les Liaisons Dangereuses is a comedy star (Sean Hayes) turning the show into a farce. Sort of like casting Jerry Lewis as Hamlet. Ivy takes the brave step of privately telling Terry (Hayes) that the play is actually a tragedy. Backfires when Terry and the director get together and decide to "lighten" it up.
The real tragedy, however, is that Karen is mooning over Jimmy. It's sappy and one-note.
Also, random return (and extended use) of Karen's sassy new roommate. Is she going to be a "real" character now? What happened to all the other friends Karen had? And while we're at it, that guy Tom was dating?
Julia's suspicions of Peter are confirmed by an encounter with Jerry's assistant. Or so she thinks . . .
While Bombshell gets its read-through, which goes over very well, Hit List is simultaneously getting one of its own. Jimmy's songs sound very radio-friendly. But the story itself—the dialogue and characters—don't go over so well. And so while Bombshell gets a green light, Hit List is sent to the back burner.
Ivy shames Terry by refusing to cop to his asinine behavior. Which somehow compels him to go off his meds.
Oh, and Nick is in the slammer. Does anyone still care about Nick? I don't.
And Karen's roommie lays it on the line for Jimmy by telling him not to toy with Karen.
New plan for Hit List: make it more like Rent by stripping it of dialogue and turning the entire story into a pseudo-opera. (And by the way, Jimmy believes Karen is dating Derek.)
Finally: Jerry tells Derek, Tom, Julia and Peter that though the reading went well, Bombshell is not Broadway material. And here comes the big twist: he wants to produce the show BUT . . . He wants to work from the workshop draft from seven months before. A draft Tom had sent him.
Time to bring in Eileen to break the tie. Old draft or new?
We won't know until next week, but one has to wonder: can Eileen legally produce, or otherwise be involved in, whichever one is NOT Bombshell? Could we have dueling Marilyn Monroe shows? And Eileen and Jerry going head-to-head? Tom versus Julia?
Nah. Overkill.
Right? . . .
And in case Bombshell's read-through, er, bombs . . . Derek gets Kyle's and Jimmy's Hit List a slot in the Winter Fringe Festival. That way he won't have all his eggs in the Bombshell basket.
Meanwhile, a random guy gives Julia cause to question Peter's loyalty. The writers for this show are far from subtle about inserting plot points and exposition.
And Ivy is having trouble dealing with the fact that the lead in Les Liaisons Dangereuses is a comedy star (Sean Hayes) turning the show into a farce. Sort of like casting Jerry Lewis as Hamlet. Ivy takes the brave step of privately telling Terry (Hayes) that the play is actually a tragedy. Backfires when Terry and the director get together and decide to "lighten" it up.
The real tragedy, however, is that Karen is mooning over Jimmy. It's sappy and one-note.
Also, random return (and extended use) of Karen's sassy new roommate. Is she going to be a "real" character now? What happened to all the other friends Karen had? And while we're at it, that guy Tom was dating?
Julia's suspicions of Peter are confirmed by an encounter with Jerry's assistant. Or so she thinks . . .
While Bombshell gets its read-through, which goes over very well, Hit List is simultaneously getting one of its own. Jimmy's songs sound very radio-friendly. But the story itself—the dialogue and characters—don't go over so well. And so while Bombshell gets a green light, Hit List is sent to the back burner.
Ivy shames Terry by refusing to cop to his asinine behavior. Which somehow compels him to go off his meds.
Oh, and Nick is in the slammer. Does anyone still care about Nick? I don't.
And Karen's roommie lays it on the line for Jimmy by telling him not to toy with Karen.
New plan for Hit List: make it more like Rent by stripping it of dialogue and turning the entire story into a pseudo-opera. (And by the way, Jimmy believes Karen is dating Derek.)
Finally: Jerry tells Derek, Tom, Julia and Peter that though the reading went well, Bombshell is not Broadway material. And here comes the big twist: he wants to produce the show BUT . . . He wants to work from the workshop draft from seven months before. A draft Tom had sent him.
Time to bring in Eileen to break the tie. Old draft or new?
We won't know until next week, but one has to wonder: can Eileen legally produce, or otherwise be involved in, whichever one is NOT Bombshell? Could we have dueling Marilyn Monroe shows? And Eileen and Jerry going head-to-head? Tom versus Julia?
Nah. Overkill.
Right? . . .
3.03.2013
Variety's New Site
Sucks.
Seriously, Variety, you've just made it more difficult for me to find anything. So what reason do I have now to frequent your site? Um . . . Hold on a sec . . . Oh. None.
I've tried multiple times since your "relaunch" on Friday to find ratings information. You know, that little chart that was on the front page of the old site? Can't find it on the new one.
Instead, I'm being subjected to annoying ads that have no "close" button.
I get Daily Variety in the mail, of course, but since they can't seem to get it to me on a regular basis, I had been using their web site to keep updated. Alas, with this revamping now even the site is incapable of making itself useful.
And so I will need to go elsewhere for my info.
Seriously, Variety, you've just made it more difficult for me to find anything. So what reason do I have now to frequent your site? Um . . . Hold on a sec . . . Oh. None.
I've tried multiple times since your "relaunch" on Friday to find ratings information. You know, that little chart that was on the front page of the old site? Can't find it on the new one.
Instead, I'm being subjected to annoying ads that have no "close" button.
I get Daily Variety in the mail, of course, but since they can't seem to get it to me on a regular basis, I had been using their web site to keep updated. Alas, with this revamping now even the site is incapable of making itself useful.
And so I will need to go elsewhere for my info.
3.02.2013
Books: What Do You Hear from Walden Pond? by Jack Douglas
This is a book I picked up years and years ago in a second-hand bookstore. Those places are filled with such treasures, books one would never have found, never have heard of. I'd never heard of Jack Douglas before finding this book, though according to the flyleaf he'd written several other books besides. But this one is from 1971, which is before I was born, and so Douglas clearly belongs to an earlier generation than mine.
Doesn't stop my enjoyment of him, though.
What Do You Hear from Walden Pond? is for people who enjoy the likes of, say, Dave Barry. It's slice-of-life humor in which Douglas writes about moving his family from Ontario to Los Angeles after he gets tapped to help write a screenplay. Hilarity ensues as Douglas, his Japanese wife, their sons, two dogs, a wolf, and a mountain lion navigate the Hollywood system. (And trust me, even with the menagerie, Douglas is still more sane than the studio execs.)
Sample text:
"How would you like to go to California?" I said.
"You mean Disneyland?" Bobby said.
"I guess I do," I said. "But they used to call it California."
Okay, so maybe I like this book because I'm a screenwriter. (I'm allowed to say that for real now that I've won an award.) But even before I'd written my first script, or even read anything by Dave Barry, I liked this book, which I discovered when I was in junior high. I take it off my shelf every few years and re-read it, usually over the summer; it's good, light-hearted fare for that time of year. And so now, as the weather out here on the West Coast is warming, and as I've been tapped to write a script of my own, I'm thinking about giving Douglas my attention once more.
And one day I'll maybe even go find some of his other books, too.
Doesn't stop my enjoyment of him, though.
What Do You Hear from Walden Pond? is for people who enjoy the likes of, say, Dave Barry. It's slice-of-life humor in which Douglas writes about moving his family from Ontario to Los Angeles after he gets tapped to help write a screenplay. Hilarity ensues as Douglas, his Japanese wife, their sons, two dogs, a wolf, and a mountain lion navigate the Hollywood system. (And trust me, even with the menagerie, Douglas is still more sane than the studio execs.)
Sample text:
"How would you like to go to California?" I said.
"You mean Disneyland?" Bobby said.
"I guess I do," I said. "But they used to call it California."
Okay, so maybe I like this book because I'm a screenwriter. (I'm allowed to say that for real now that I've won an award.) But even before I'd written my first script, or even read anything by Dave Barry, I liked this book, which I discovered when I was in junior high. I take it off my shelf every few years and re-read it, usually over the summer; it's good, light-hearted fare for that time of year. And so now, as the weather out here on the West Coast is warming, and as I've been tapped to write a script of my own, I'm thinking about giving Douglas my attention once more.
And one day I'll maybe even go find some of his other books, too.
3.01.2013
Television: The Following, "The Fall"
What we learned: Kevin Bacon is way better than James Purefoy at fucking with people's heads. Seriously. Watching Ryan Hardy mess with Jacob and Paul was really the only good thing about this episode.
Also, this was the last episode of The Following I will ever watch. Because really, this kidnapping thing is being dragged out, and the counter coups by Carroll's minions are starting to be ridiculous. If Emma had at least gotten a bullet in the head I might've been up for more, but no. I cannot stand the snail's pace of this show, and the fact that we always end up back at square one. There's no progress. It's the same problem I have with Revolution (and I haven't decided whether I'll still be watching that when it returns either).
Weird coincidence, though: as I was deleting the series recording from my DVR, James Purefoy only about twenty years younger appeared on my television screen. Turns out "The Boscome Valley Mystery" (Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes) was on . . . My worlds were colliding there for a minute, but I got over it with the help of some Oreos.
Also, this was the last episode of The Following I will ever watch. Because really, this kidnapping thing is being dragged out, and the counter coups by Carroll's minions are starting to be ridiculous. If Emma had at least gotten a bullet in the head I might've been up for more, but no. I cannot stand the snail's pace of this show, and the fact that we always end up back at square one. There's no progress. It's the same problem I have with Revolution (and I haven't decided whether I'll still be watching that when it returns either).
Weird coincidence, though: as I was deleting the series recording from my DVR, James Purefoy only about twenty years younger appeared on my television screen. Turns out "The Boscome Valley Mystery" (Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes) was on . . . My worlds were colliding there for a minute, but I got over it with the help of some Oreos.
The Deck of 1000 Spreads
Here is where I admit my weakness for Tarot decks. Some I buy just because I like the artwork on them, a few others because I feel a connection to them. I'm no adept when it comes to reading these cards; in fact, I wouldn't say I entirely "believe in" them (and maybe that's what works against my being able to read them well, though I will say they make more sense when I'm reading for someone else than for myself, so I suspect it has to do with personal biases). I don't necessarily think Tarot cards predict a future any more than a horoscope does. These things are more like food for thought, at least for me, rather than a faith.
But all that aside, I'm always looking for new and interesting ways to play with and read the cards. Need an excuse to own all these decks, after all. I've worn out the Celtic Cross spread and all its kin, but being that I am not, as I said, some expert, I thought this Deck of 1000 Spreads might be fun.
The gimmick is deceptively simple. There are 65 color-coded cards, 59 of which are pre-printed with things like: Goal, Advice, You, Negative Influences . . . You get the idea. (The other six cards are blank so you can use them however you like.) You use these cards like a game of Tarot Twister, creating your own spreads by putting the colored cards down first as placeholders. Then you lay the Tarot cards on top of these cards. An example below:
You see how each of the pre-printed cards also offers guidance on how to interpret whichever Tarot card lands there; these notes also help in determining which of the Twister-y cards to use when creating a spread. (That deck I'm using is the Harmonious Tarot, btw, my personal favorite and the only one of my decks I use daily.)
For anyone feeling a little uncertain about laying out their own spreads willy-nilly, well, the accompanying book has suggestions that you can start with and build on as you get more comfortable.
Also, with all these options, it is possible to get a little carried away. After playing with it for a bit, I found myself laying out 14-card spreads, at which point I thought, Now this is just ridiculous. Because there has to be a tipping point, doesn't there? Do you really need to use the Romance AND Relationship cards? Or are you able to understand the nuances that differentiate the two, and is there no such thing as too much information? At the very least I would recommend dipping your toes before diving in.
Still and all, not a bad tool. Novices will appreciate the helpful indicators on the cards, old hands may enjoy the freedom this spread-building deck offers. Not that they couldn't make up their own spreads before, but the cards help focus one's intent at each point in the spread.
And yet . . . Beware. They can be a tad distracting, too. So if you do use these cards, you may want to redouble your focus once you begin laying the Tarot cards over them.
Oh, and this kit doesn't come with a Tarot deck. So be sure you already have one, or order one in tandem.
But all that aside, I'm always looking for new and interesting ways to play with and read the cards. Need an excuse to own all these decks, after all. I've worn out the Celtic Cross spread and all its kin, but being that I am not, as I said, some expert, I thought this Deck of 1000 Spreads might be fun.
The gimmick is deceptively simple. There are 65 color-coded cards, 59 of which are pre-printed with things like: Goal, Advice, You, Negative Influences . . . You get the idea. (The other six cards are blank so you can use them however you like.) You use these cards like a game of Tarot Twister, creating your own spreads by putting the colored cards down first as placeholders. Then you lay the Tarot cards on top of these cards. An example below:
You see how each of the pre-printed cards also offers guidance on how to interpret whichever Tarot card lands there; these notes also help in determining which of the Twister-y cards to use when creating a spread. (That deck I'm using is the Harmonious Tarot, btw, my personal favorite and the only one of my decks I use daily.)
For anyone feeling a little uncertain about laying out their own spreads willy-nilly, well, the accompanying book has suggestions that you can start with and build on as you get more comfortable.
Also, with all these options, it is possible to get a little carried away. After playing with it for a bit, I found myself laying out 14-card spreads, at which point I thought, Now this is just ridiculous. Because there has to be a tipping point, doesn't there? Do you really need to use the Romance AND Relationship cards? Or are you able to understand the nuances that differentiate the two, and is there no such thing as too much information? At the very least I would recommend dipping your toes before diving in.
Still and all, not a bad tool. Novices will appreciate the helpful indicators on the cards, old hands may enjoy the freedom this spread-building deck offers. Not that they couldn't make up their own spreads before, but the cards help focus one's intent at each point in the spread.
And yet . . . Beware. They can be a tad distracting, too. So if you do use these cards, you may want to redouble your focus once you begin laying the Tarot cards over them.
Oh, and this kit doesn't come with a Tarot deck. So be sure you already have one, or order one in tandem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)