When the previews for this movie came out months ago, I was pretty excited. Good cast and what appeared to be an interesting premise. Plus, a shout out to the local Livermore Lab! But when the actual film came out, critics panned it, and I decided it wasn't anything I absolutely had to see on the big screen. So I waited.
The good news: Transcendence wasn't as bad as the reviews led me to believe.
The bad news: It still wasn't great.
Johnny Depp plays Will Caster, a scientist working on A.I. When he's shot by an anti-tech group called Rift—with a radioactive bullet!—after giving a lecture, his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) and friend Max (Paul Bettany) use Will's remaining time to "upload" his consciousness so he can continue his work.
Okay, so it's a stretch. But other sci-fi movies have reached further and grasped at less.
Almost immediately, Max begins to doubt. But Evelyn, of course, wants to believe it really is Will living on in the computer(s). She hooks him up to the Internet and he plays the stock market so they can go build a massive lab out in the middle of the desert.
At this point, I'm not sure what Evelyn does any more, since Will pretty much runs things in the lab. Also, it's not clear how much time passes in building this facility; it seems impossibly fast, but maybe that's because Will via computer is able to sign shipping manifests and requisition materials at, er, will. A little later a legend reads "Two Years Later," but at that point it doesn't seem much has changed.
Max, meanwhile, is abducted by Rift and kept as the world's worst zoo exhibit until he agrees to help them.
Morgan Freeman and Cillian Murphy are also wandering around as another scientist/guru (Freeman is the go-to for that kind of thing these days) and an FBI agent.
Thing is, there are some interesting ideas underlying the terribly generic plot, and if they'd taken the movie in any number of directions, it might actually have been really good. For example, the way Will as a computer watches over Evelyn. That's super creepy. They could have punched that up and made for a truly horrific stalker angle. But my guess is they didn't want to taint the "love story."
And then, when Will begins "enhancing" the people he helps so that they are networked together? What if the zombie apocalypse came at the hands of such a thing? People connected via technology . . . It could be a Doctor Who episode, really, and probably has been (Cybermen?), or a Stephen King novel (Cell?) . . . So while it's not an original idea, it still could have been put to great use in Transcendence. But wasn't.
Finally, the question of what one would be willing to give up in order to be "enhanced." Or, looked at another way: Is it worth healing the world and providing resources for all at the cost of individuality? What is the risk of having whole populations able to be commanded by a technological consciousness? (Is it a consciousness? Or merely a code?)
I won't say how it all gets resolved, but it is the fad these days to play upon the fear of technology meltdowns. What does it mean to be so reliant on technology, even just electricity? Shows like Revolution explored that, and Transcendence touches on it as well. But again, the movie only skims; it never delves. And that's its greatest sin. While attempting to transcend, Transcendence is merely mediocre.
7.26.2014
7.21.2014
Television: The Leftovers, "Two Boats and a Helicopter" and "B.J. and the A.C."
So let's look at the past couple weeks of this show. There was the episode that focused on Christopher Eccleston's character, though I was mostly distracted by how he was talking like Jimmy Stewart. But never mind. Short story is: Reverend Jamison (Eccleston) is in danger of losing his church—the physical building—and gambles in order to get the money to save it. At the same time, he is the regular victim of attacks because he declaims those taken in the Sudden Departure as not heroes, not special . . . In fact, he actively seeks stories about how those taken were bad: abusers, drug dealers, etc. If I had to dig out my psychology texts, I'd say he's suffering from having been left behind in what to so many appear to be a "rapturous" event. He's driven to prove he's better than those taken because he's scared that he's not and he missed the boat.
Whatever. He kills a guy anyway. And gets beat up again and ends up not being in time to save his church after all, even though he won the money.
Oh, and he's the brother of the lady who lost her whole family in the Departure? (He even tells his sister that her husband was having an affair. Nice. Does he not understand that it's not about whether those people were better? It's only about the fact they're gone, and those who remain would prefer to remember the good. Speak no ill of the dead, they say. Or the Departed.)
"Two Boats and a Helicopter" suffered a bit under the weight of one big story line rather than having a few things to keep people entertained. "B.J. and the A.C." brought back the jumble of things: Tom and Christine waiting for Wayne to call and give them instructions; the baby Jesus being taken from an outdoor Nativity; the G.R. sneaking into houses and stealing photographs; and Laurie serving Kevin with divorce papers. None of it particularly compelling, but whatever. This episode did bring me to the conclusion that Christine is kind of awful for having been made into a bit of a diva (and she's pregnant with Wayne's baby, btw). And I also had the fleeting thought that a cult (like the G.R.) that doesn't have a good way to articulate what it stands for is kind of a crap organization. They can behave like Grinches or whatever, and maybe their actions are supposed to speak for them, and one joins only when one "feels" it, but . . . It's just dumb. Both in the original sense and the commonplace. Also, they should have a white van.
I suppose the interesting thing about the show is that it has this fantastical premise—the Departure—but focuses on the mundane fallout of that one event. Sort of like FlashForward did some years ago. Shows like these pose the "What if?" and then try to find interesting ways to answer the question in regards to the impact of such bizarre events, what singular individuals might do in response to them. It is, unfortunately, a genre without much of a track record. Because viewers begin to get impatient and want to see some actual plot kick in. They don't want to sit around people's houses and offices and listen to them talk or argue; they want some action. They want someone to be finding the answer to why the event occurred, and they want someone to do something about it. But I don't think The Leftovers is that kind of show. I think it's based at least partly on the idea that sometimes things happen and we don't know why and might never know why but we still have to deal with them. It borders on pretentiousness, and I don't like The Leftovers near as much as I did FlashForward, which did work toward answering "why" and "how." But I do still find it moderately interesting. I am still curious about which way things might go. But I can't see the show sustaining itself indefinitely, either. Coming from a finite source (a novel), it surely must work toward some end. The question will be whether any viewers are left before that happens.
Whatever. He kills a guy anyway. And gets beat up again and ends up not being in time to save his church after all, even though he won the money.
Oh, and he's the brother of the lady who lost her whole family in the Departure? (He even tells his sister that her husband was having an affair. Nice. Does he not understand that it's not about whether those people were better? It's only about the fact they're gone, and those who remain would prefer to remember the good. Speak no ill of the dead, they say. Or the Departed.)
"Two Boats and a Helicopter" suffered a bit under the weight of one big story line rather than having a few things to keep people entertained. "B.J. and the A.C." brought back the jumble of things: Tom and Christine waiting for Wayne to call and give them instructions; the baby Jesus being taken from an outdoor Nativity; the G.R. sneaking into houses and stealing photographs; and Laurie serving Kevin with divorce papers. None of it particularly compelling, but whatever. This episode did bring me to the conclusion that Christine is kind of awful for having been made into a bit of a diva (and she's pregnant with Wayne's baby, btw). And I also had the fleeting thought that a cult (like the G.R.) that doesn't have a good way to articulate what it stands for is kind of a crap organization. They can behave like Grinches or whatever, and maybe their actions are supposed to speak for them, and one joins only when one "feels" it, but . . . It's just dumb. Both in the original sense and the commonplace. Also, they should have a white van.
I suppose the interesting thing about the show is that it has this fantastical premise—the Departure—but focuses on the mundane fallout of that one event. Sort of like FlashForward did some years ago. Shows like these pose the "What if?" and then try to find interesting ways to answer the question in regards to the impact of such bizarre events, what singular individuals might do in response to them. It is, unfortunately, a genre without much of a track record. Because viewers begin to get impatient and want to see some actual plot kick in. They don't want to sit around people's houses and offices and listen to them talk or argue; they want some action. They want someone to be finding the answer to why the event occurred, and they want someone to do something about it. But I don't think The Leftovers is that kind of show. I think it's based at least partly on the idea that sometimes things happen and we don't know why and might never know why but we still have to deal with them. It borders on pretentiousness, and I don't like The Leftovers near as much as I did FlashForward, which did work toward answering "why" and "how." But I do still find it moderately interesting. I am still curious about which way things might go. But I can't see the show sustaining itself indefinitely, either. Coming from a finite source (a novel), it surely must work toward some end. The question will be whether any viewers are left before that happens.
Books: Persuasion by Jane Austen (Chapters XIX–XXIV)
When two people share a mutual attraction but neither will move to do anything about it, it is agony. Somewhat juvenile, perhaps, but I am not altogether immune to the romance of the situation. I've felt it often enough myself in the past.
In truth, what with the Asperger's, I usually ignore people. So when someone intrudes on my consciousness, one of two things occurs: anger at the interruption, or a sort of paralysis, as if someone were walking across my very heart.
But that's neither here nor there, except to say that the last bit of Persuasion is spent with Anne and Captain Wentworth locked in mute struggle of attraction. Like so many teens could sympathize: Is he looking at me? He is! He was looking at me! But what kind of look was it? Attempting forever to extrapolate hope from the smallest expression, gesture, or word. And fearing always that the next look or word will shatter that fragile hope.
Anne had been worried that Wentworth was attached to Louisa, but hearing that Louisa has become engaged to Benwick, and then Wentworth's subsequent appearance in Bath, gives Anne hope that he may yet harbor feelings for her. Warm ones, that is, beyond the resentment he would have every right to feel after she gave him up some eight years before. (Turns out love is the stronger emotion, however.)
And Wentworth spends his time hardly daring to speak to Anne and falling prey to the general gossip that Anne will most likely marry Mr. Elliot. Again, it is all the schoolboy theatrics: Does she like me? She's nice to me! But maybe she's dating that guy . . .
Oh, for God's sake, somebody say or do something!
Finally Wentworth does write Anne a hasty note that delineates his true feelings for her. It is a fabulous missive of the kind every girl would love to receive. I've had poems and songs written for me, and my artist friend was once moved to create a book of love quotes for me, but this kind of letter is something else entirely. Possibly because men can be so reticent. Letters like Wentworth's are rare, and so it becomes something precious.
In any case, one can move to the logical conclusion without my saying anything: Anne and Wentworth end up together, none the worse and possibly somewhat the better for having waited the eight years.
The title refers to Anne having been persuaded by family and friends not to accept Wentworth all those years ago. And the book then shows how it is better to follow one's good sense and heart rather than be pressed on by people more interested in rank and appearances. It doesn't much say what one should do if one has no sense or heart . . . I would venture you should then take the good advice of someone who does possess these attributes. Assuming you can find a person of such description. They tend not to go out in public much, so you may have to knock on some doors.
As for the remainder of characters: Mrs. Smith imparts to Anne the truth about Mr. Elliot—Elliot's unkind words about Sir Walter and Elizabeth behind their backs, even as he ingratiates himself to them, and also Elliot's own mistreatment of Mrs. Smith as executor of her husband's will—thus validating Anne's own misgivings of his character. Once Anne and Wentworth become engaged, Mr. Elliot quits the field and takes Mrs. Clay with him, setting her up in London as his mistress. (The idea being that Elliot's goal was to make sure Sir Walter did not remarry and have any heirs, thus taking Mr. Elliot out of line for the baronetcy.) And so his black mark gets darker, and the reader is thus assured Anne and the others are better off without him.
And Mrs. Smith, once Anne is married, has Captain Wentworth to thank for helping to untangle all the threads of her late husband's will, thus restoring her to some level of fortune.
Lady Russell does finally accept Captain Wentworth as the key to dear Anne's happiness and eventually becomes like a mother to him, just as she is like a mother to Anne.
Sir Walter and Elizabeth evidently remain silly and stupid and no one thinks of them in any high regard, so that they are reduced to following in the train of Lady Dalrymple and Miss Carteret with no one to follow them.
It is mentioned that Anne is only sorry she could not provide Wentworth with better relatives, but the fact he takes her in spite of her family shows the depth of his love, I think. That and the whole waiting around for eight years. Though I can relate, having grown up in a very traditional way and with very definite ideas about what was and wasn't proper . . . And these ideas only supported my natural shyness . . . It is an odd thing to be reluctant and impatient at the same time, a very frustrating feeling. Which is probably why I enjoyed this book and sympathized so greatly with the two principle characters.
In truth, what with the Asperger's, I usually ignore people. So when someone intrudes on my consciousness, one of two things occurs: anger at the interruption, or a sort of paralysis, as if someone were walking across my very heart.
But that's neither here nor there, except to say that the last bit of Persuasion is spent with Anne and Captain Wentworth locked in mute struggle of attraction. Like so many teens could sympathize: Is he looking at me? He is! He was looking at me! But what kind of look was it? Attempting forever to extrapolate hope from the smallest expression, gesture, or word. And fearing always that the next look or word will shatter that fragile hope.
Anne had been worried that Wentworth was attached to Louisa, but hearing that Louisa has become engaged to Benwick, and then Wentworth's subsequent appearance in Bath, gives Anne hope that he may yet harbor feelings for her. Warm ones, that is, beyond the resentment he would have every right to feel after she gave him up some eight years before. (Turns out love is the stronger emotion, however.)
And Wentworth spends his time hardly daring to speak to Anne and falling prey to the general gossip that Anne will most likely marry Mr. Elliot. Again, it is all the schoolboy theatrics: Does she like me? She's nice to me! But maybe she's dating that guy . . .
Oh, for God's sake, somebody say or do something!
Finally Wentworth does write Anne a hasty note that delineates his true feelings for her. It is a fabulous missive of the kind every girl would love to receive. I've had poems and songs written for me, and my artist friend was once moved to create a book of love quotes for me, but this kind of letter is something else entirely. Possibly because men can be so reticent. Letters like Wentworth's are rare, and so it becomes something precious.
In any case, one can move to the logical conclusion without my saying anything: Anne and Wentworth end up together, none the worse and possibly somewhat the better for having waited the eight years.
The title refers to Anne having been persuaded by family and friends not to accept Wentworth all those years ago. And the book then shows how it is better to follow one's good sense and heart rather than be pressed on by people more interested in rank and appearances. It doesn't much say what one should do if one has no sense or heart . . . I would venture you should then take the good advice of someone who does possess these attributes. Assuming you can find a person of such description. They tend not to go out in public much, so you may have to knock on some doors.
As for the remainder of characters: Mrs. Smith imparts to Anne the truth about Mr. Elliot—Elliot's unkind words about Sir Walter and Elizabeth behind their backs, even as he ingratiates himself to them, and also Elliot's own mistreatment of Mrs. Smith as executor of her husband's will—thus validating Anne's own misgivings of his character. Once Anne and Wentworth become engaged, Mr. Elliot quits the field and takes Mrs. Clay with him, setting her up in London as his mistress. (The idea being that Elliot's goal was to make sure Sir Walter did not remarry and have any heirs, thus taking Mr. Elliot out of line for the baronetcy.) And so his black mark gets darker, and the reader is thus assured Anne and the others are better off without him.
And Mrs. Smith, once Anne is married, has Captain Wentworth to thank for helping to untangle all the threads of her late husband's will, thus restoring her to some level of fortune.
Lady Russell does finally accept Captain Wentworth as the key to dear Anne's happiness and eventually becomes like a mother to him, just as she is like a mother to Anne.
Sir Walter and Elizabeth evidently remain silly and stupid and no one thinks of them in any high regard, so that they are reduced to following in the train of Lady Dalrymple and Miss Carteret with no one to follow them.
It is mentioned that Anne is only sorry she could not provide Wentworth with better relatives, but the fact he takes her in spite of her family shows the depth of his love, I think. That and the whole waiting around for eight years. Though I can relate, having grown up in a very traditional way and with very definite ideas about what was and wasn't proper . . . And these ideas only supported my natural shyness . . . It is an odd thing to be reluctant and impatient at the same time, a very frustrating feeling. Which is probably why I enjoyed this book and sympathized so greatly with the two principle characters.
7.20.2014
Movies: Double Features
Lately I've been thinking about movie pairings. You know, just like some people would think about food and wine pairings, I've been thinking about movies that make good back-to-back viewings.
When I was a kid, it was practically required that we watch The Last Unicorn and Labyrinth at every sleepover. So that's probably my first experience with pairing up movies. Though, thinking about it now, I do feel The Neverending Story works better with either The Last Unicorn or Labyrinth, more so than TLU and Labyrinth do together. Both TNS and Labyrinth have the Creature Shop factor to tie them together. Meanwhile, there's something similar in tone in TNS and TLU.
You see I take this seriously.
Of course, some movies are natural mates. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan must necessarily be followed with Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. And the Star Wars and Indiana Jones movies . . . Any series, really. But when you are dealing with something as massive as Star Trek, I can personally suggest Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home be paired with Star Trek: First Contact, as these share the time travel theme. I watched them both the other night and they played well together.
It's relatively easy to pair sci-fi type films. For sci-fi comedy, I tried Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Galaxy Quest, and they were a good duo.
But what if you don't want action or sci-fi? The most common thing, then, is to either choose an actor or a genre (or both) and go from there. My friends and I did The Innocents and The Haunting for a chilling evening of entertainment. To see Cary Grant get knotted up over ex-wives, go for The Awful Truth and His Girl Friday (where Grant plays against Ralph Bellamy in both). If you're looking for more modern rom-com, My Best Friend's Wedding + Runaway Bride works pretty well.
Harder to pair is drama, because so many dramatic movies can feel "heavy," and it can be difficult to watch more than one. You could maybe pick any two Coen Brothers movies, though many of those are more dark comedy than drama. Or you could do one drama and one comedy, like Steel Magnolias followed by some other Julia Roberts movie to lift your spirits. I know at least one person who really hates Julia Roberts, though, so maybe I should come up with another example . . . St. Elmo's Fire and Sixteen Candles?
You could pick movies based on stage plays. Arsenic and Old Lace and Rope, for example. Or throw in Suddenly, Last Summer with one of those. California Suite and Sleuth (I recommend the 1972 version). Or, keeping with Michael Caine, Sleuth and Deathtrap. (Actually, I believe Caine was also in California Suite . . .)
Taking that up a notch, musicals are fun features, too. However, many musicals have a longer running time, so be sure you take that into account if you're planning back-to-back viewings of, say, My Fair Lady and Camelot.
I could go on and on, of course. There are infinite combinations to suit every whim and mood. I'm only here to say what's worked for me (Secret of NIMH + Anastasia, if you like Don Bluth). I'd love to hear what you come up with.
When I was a kid, it was practically required that we watch The Last Unicorn and Labyrinth at every sleepover. So that's probably my first experience with pairing up movies. Though, thinking about it now, I do feel The Neverending Story works better with either The Last Unicorn or Labyrinth, more so than TLU and Labyrinth do together. Both TNS and Labyrinth have the Creature Shop factor to tie them together. Meanwhile, there's something similar in tone in TNS and TLU.
You see I take this seriously.
Of course, some movies are natural mates. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan must necessarily be followed with Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. And the Star Wars and Indiana Jones movies . . . Any series, really. But when you are dealing with something as massive as Star Trek, I can personally suggest Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home be paired with Star Trek: First Contact, as these share the time travel theme. I watched them both the other night and they played well together.
It's relatively easy to pair sci-fi type films. For sci-fi comedy, I tried Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Galaxy Quest, and they were a good duo.
But what if you don't want action or sci-fi? The most common thing, then, is to either choose an actor or a genre (or both) and go from there. My friends and I did The Innocents and The Haunting for a chilling evening of entertainment. To see Cary Grant get knotted up over ex-wives, go for The Awful Truth and His Girl Friday (where Grant plays against Ralph Bellamy in both). If you're looking for more modern rom-com, My Best Friend's Wedding + Runaway Bride works pretty well.
Harder to pair is drama, because so many dramatic movies can feel "heavy," and it can be difficult to watch more than one. You could maybe pick any two Coen Brothers movies, though many of those are more dark comedy than drama. Or you could do one drama and one comedy, like Steel Magnolias followed by some other Julia Roberts movie to lift your spirits. I know at least one person who really hates Julia Roberts, though, so maybe I should come up with another example . . . St. Elmo's Fire and Sixteen Candles?
You could pick movies based on stage plays. Arsenic and Old Lace and Rope, for example. Or throw in Suddenly, Last Summer with one of those. California Suite and Sleuth (I recommend the 1972 version). Or, keeping with Michael Caine, Sleuth and Deathtrap. (Actually, I believe Caine was also in California Suite . . .)
Taking that up a notch, musicals are fun features, too. However, many musicals have a longer running time, so be sure you take that into account if you're planning back-to-back viewings of, say, My Fair Lady and Camelot.
I could go on and on, of course. There are infinite combinations to suit every whim and mood. I'm only here to say what's worked for me (Secret of NIMH + Anastasia, if you like Don Bluth). I'd love to hear what you come up with.
7.19.2014
Books: Persuasion by Jane Austen (Chapters XIII–XVIII)
So after all that fuss at Lyme over Louisa Musgrove's fall and head injury, Anne eventually returns to Kellynch to stay with Lady Russell until it is time to go on to Bath to meet up with her father and older sister. (You'll remember them as Sir Walter and Elizabeth.) And the somewhat awful widow Mrs. Clay continues to hang on to Elizabeth and, by extension, Sir Walter as well.
In Bath, Anne begins a formal acquaintance with that Mr. Elliot, her cousin and Sir Walter's heir, the one she twice passed so briefly in Lyme. Mr. Elliot, it seems, has attached himself to Sir Walter's household and has been forgiven for past slights which have been explained away as misunderstandings and foolish, youthful follies. Lady Russell has it in mind that once Mr. Elliot's formal mourning for his wife is over, he will make a play for Anne to be the next Lady Elliot. And while there is some comfort in the idea to Anne—of being what her mother once was, lady of Kellynch Hall, secure in her home and place—she cannot bring herself to entirely like or trust Mr. Elliot. It's almost as if his manners are too pretty. Anne finds the fact that everyone likes him a mark of dishonesty; that is to say, if everyone likes Mr. Elliot, it must mean he works to ingratiate himself to all, and is therefore not entirely sincere or honest about his true feelings about things (assuming he knows himself how he does feel). And Anne has seen Mr. Elliot speak ill of Mrs. Clay behind Mrs. Clay's back.
Also in Bath is a Mrs. Smith, now a impoverished widow but once a great friend of Anne's when Anne was away at school; they strike up a new friendship. And Lady Dalrymple, cousin of Sir Walter, whose favor Sir Walter and Elizabeth seek. Sir Walter is singularly focused on people's looks and rank; he goes on about how unattractive are so many of the people at Bath.
Then Admiral and Mrs. Croft—those who have been renting Kellynch Hall—also come to Bath because of the Admiral's gout. They bring with them letters from Mary to Anne that say Louisa is engaged to Captain Benwick! And when Anne meets with Admiral Croft one day, he talks to her about the engagement and how surprised he and Mrs. Croft were that Louisa and Frederick had not ended up engaged instead. But Anne is forced to admit (to herself, never aloud!) that she is oddly happy to hear that Frederick Wentworth is not attached . . .
In Bath, Anne begins a formal acquaintance with that Mr. Elliot, her cousin and Sir Walter's heir, the one she twice passed so briefly in Lyme. Mr. Elliot, it seems, has attached himself to Sir Walter's household and has been forgiven for past slights which have been explained away as misunderstandings and foolish, youthful follies. Lady Russell has it in mind that once Mr. Elliot's formal mourning for his wife is over, he will make a play for Anne to be the next Lady Elliot. And while there is some comfort in the idea to Anne—of being what her mother once was, lady of Kellynch Hall, secure in her home and place—she cannot bring herself to entirely like or trust Mr. Elliot. It's almost as if his manners are too pretty. Anne finds the fact that everyone likes him a mark of dishonesty; that is to say, if everyone likes Mr. Elliot, it must mean he works to ingratiate himself to all, and is therefore not entirely sincere or honest about his true feelings about things (assuming he knows himself how he does feel). And Anne has seen Mr. Elliot speak ill of Mrs. Clay behind Mrs. Clay's back.
Also in Bath is a Mrs. Smith, now a impoverished widow but once a great friend of Anne's when Anne was away at school; they strike up a new friendship. And Lady Dalrymple, cousin of Sir Walter, whose favor Sir Walter and Elizabeth seek. Sir Walter is singularly focused on people's looks and rank; he goes on about how unattractive are so many of the people at Bath.
Then Admiral and Mrs. Croft—those who have been renting Kellynch Hall—also come to Bath because of the Admiral's gout. They bring with them letters from Mary to Anne that say Louisa is engaged to Captain Benwick! And when Anne meets with Admiral Croft one day, he talks to her about the engagement and how surprised he and Mrs. Croft were that Louisa and Frederick had not ended up engaged instead. But Anne is forced to admit (to herself, never aloud!) that she is oddly happy to hear that Frederick Wentworth is not attached . . .
7.17.2014
Books: Persuasion by Jane Austen (Chapters VII–XII)
I must say, I find Anne a bit colorless as a heroine. Fanny in Mansfield Park is no less retiring, though I suppose Fanny at least had her cousin to speak openly to, when he happened to be around; Anne mostly keeps her own counsel and is hardly heard when she does try to say anything.
Except that's not exactly true. In this part of the book, a troupe of characters goes down to Lyme, and Anne finds herself attended to by a Captain Benwick. They discuss poetry, and Anne gives him the titles of some books she thinks he might enjoy.
Anne also proves valuable when Louisa Musgrove tosses herself down the stairs of the Cobb. Captain Wentworth is meant to catch her but he does not, and Louisa suffers a head injury that leaves her "insensible" (that is, unconscious). Indeed, at first everyone thinks she's dead, but no. Louisa is left to be looked after at Captain Harville's home (Harville being a friend of Captain Wentworth), while Wentworth, Anne, and Louisa's sister Henrietta travel back to Uppercross to tell Louisa's parents of her fall.
The one other interesting incident would be that they crossed paths with one Mr. Elliot, the heir to the baronetcy. Sir Walter had aimed to have Mr. Elliot marry Elizabeth, but Mr. Elliot . . . Let's say he did not pursue the connection. Though invited to visit, he never did, and he eventually married someone else. But now he is a widower. Meanwhile, Sir Walter and Elizabeth took it quite personally that Mr. Elliot did not fall in with their plans. And Anne never met the man at all, so though they crossed paths twice in this selection of chapters, she did not know him until after he'd gone. But it is said that Mr. Elliot looked quite admiringly at Anne; the fresh air at Lyme had done her some good, it seems.
Where does this leave Anne? Well, she is growing accustomed to the new circumstances between herself and Captain Wentworth; they are civil but not warm toward one another. And it has been expected that Wentworth might choose either Henrietta or Louisa as a future bride (though Henrietta is moderately attached to one Charles Hayter, a curate). But now we have Captain Benwick on the scene, who seems to enjoy Anne's company, and even Mr. Elliot admired Anne's looks, so . . . Might she have other suitors? Other options?
Louisa's headstrong determination and refusal to listen to others is what has put her in a bad place. This much seems to be the point of this part of the story. Yet it was Anne's lack of determination that kept her from happily marrying Wentworth some seven or eight years prior. I suppose a balance is needed, or at the least one is meant to pick one's battles. Not to force things, but instead to allow natural attachments to form and then nurture those. Rather like planting native plants and cultivating them instead of trying to force an unnatural transplant. When two people discover they have things in common beyond an initial liking of one's looks—that is the difference between an annual, short-lived attraction and a perennial affection that can last over many seasons.
Except that's not exactly true. In this part of the book, a troupe of characters goes down to Lyme, and Anne finds herself attended to by a Captain Benwick. They discuss poetry, and Anne gives him the titles of some books she thinks he might enjoy.
Anne also proves valuable when Louisa Musgrove tosses herself down the stairs of the Cobb. Captain Wentworth is meant to catch her but he does not, and Louisa suffers a head injury that leaves her "insensible" (that is, unconscious). Indeed, at first everyone thinks she's dead, but no. Louisa is left to be looked after at Captain Harville's home (Harville being a friend of Captain Wentworth), while Wentworth, Anne, and Louisa's sister Henrietta travel back to Uppercross to tell Louisa's parents of her fall.
The one other interesting incident would be that they crossed paths with one Mr. Elliot, the heir to the baronetcy. Sir Walter had aimed to have Mr. Elliot marry Elizabeth, but Mr. Elliot . . . Let's say he did not pursue the connection. Though invited to visit, he never did, and he eventually married someone else. But now he is a widower. Meanwhile, Sir Walter and Elizabeth took it quite personally that Mr. Elliot did not fall in with their plans. And Anne never met the man at all, so though they crossed paths twice in this selection of chapters, she did not know him until after he'd gone. But it is said that Mr. Elliot looked quite admiringly at Anne; the fresh air at Lyme had done her some good, it seems.
Where does this leave Anne? Well, she is growing accustomed to the new circumstances between herself and Captain Wentworth; they are civil but not warm toward one another. And it has been expected that Wentworth might choose either Henrietta or Louisa as a future bride (though Henrietta is moderately attached to one Charles Hayter, a curate). But now we have Captain Benwick on the scene, who seems to enjoy Anne's company, and even Mr. Elliot admired Anne's looks, so . . . Might she have other suitors? Other options?
Louisa's headstrong determination and refusal to listen to others is what has put her in a bad place. This much seems to be the point of this part of the story. Yet it was Anne's lack of determination that kept her from happily marrying Wentworth some seven or eight years prior. I suppose a balance is needed, or at the least one is meant to pick one's battles. Not to force things, but instead to allow natural attachments to form and then nurture those. Rather like planting native plants and cultivating them instead of trying to force an unnatural transplant. When two people discover they have things in common beyond an initial liking of one's looks—that is the difference between an annual, short-lived attraction and a perennial affection that can last over many seasons.
Television: Extant, "Pilot"
I know, I know, I'm a week behind already. But I did finally make my way to this one on my DVR queue. And . . . I'm intrigued.
It was a slow start, and I don't like the kid at all (am I supposed to?), but there were enough weird little things going on to keep me interested enough to watch another episode (now also on the DVR).
Set in the middling future, Halle Barry plays an astronaut named Molly Woods. She's just come back from a year-long solo mission and is having a difficult time readjusting to family life with her husband John and son Ethan.
There's an A.I. thing going on with the robot son . . . Does he grow? If not, at what point do the parents get tired of raising a perpetual child? When the fun and novelty wear off, can they just stick him back in his box? Sell him on eBay? Do they still have eBay?
Anyway, Ethan and other A.I. children for those who can't have their own and aren't qualified to adopt, is John's pet project for which he's working to get funding. But Ethan is having weird "malfunctions" where he exhibits aggressive behavior. This kid was definitely born/manufactured in the Uncanny Valley.
And Molly . . . She comes home from a solo space mission . . . pregnant? And she's tried to cover up some weird goings—dead people visiting—on by erasing footage from the space station cameras. Hmm.
Final puzzle piece: Talk of another astronaut having had mental issues after a mission. He supposedly committed suicide.
So yeah, there are some interesting things happening on the show, and despite the slowish pace, it fed me just enough to entice me to come back. We'll see if it holds.
It was a slow start, and I don't like the kid at all (am I supposed to?), but there were enough weird little things going on to keep me interested enough to watch another episode (now also on the DVR).
Set in the middling future, Halle Barry plays an astronaut named Molly Woods. She's just come back from a year-long solo mission and is having a difficult time readjusting to family life with her husband John and son Ethan.
There's an A.I. thing going on with the robot son . . . Does he grow? If not, at what point do the parents get tired of raising a perpetual child? When the fun and novelty wear off, can they just stick him back in his box? Sell him on eBay? Do they still have eBay?
Anyway, Ethan and other A.I. children for those who can't have their own and aren't qualified to adopt, is John's pet project for which he's working to get funding. But Ethan is having weird "malfunctions" where he exhibits aggressive behavior. This kid was definitely born/manufactured in the Uncanny Valley.
And Molly . . . She comes home from a solo space mission . . . pregnant? And she's tried to cover up some weird goings—dead people visiting—on by erasing footage from the space station cameras. Hmm.
Final puzzle piece: Talk of another astronaut having had mental issues after a mission. He supposedly committed suicide.
So yeah, there are some interesting things happening on the show, and despite the slowish pace, it fed me just enough to entice me to come back. We'll see if it holds.
7.16.2014
Books: Persuasion by Jane Austen (Chapters I–VI)
More from my stack of classics that I never got around to reading, and in particular the Jane Austen novels I have not yet read.
In this one, the persecuted party is Anne Elliot, middle daughter of a baronet. She is perpetually overlooked by her family, and her one "claim to fame" is that she nearly married one Captain Frederick Wentworth except her father refused to allow such a "low" connection.
Anne lives retiringly in her sister Elizabeth's shadow. Their younger sister Mary is married and lives in the area. And their dead mother's friend Lady Russell also lives close by; Anne is used to spending a fair amount of time in her company, and is something of a favorite of Lady Russell's, though that lady has done little enough to promote Anne to her own family. I gather Lady Russell has tried to get Elizabeth and Sir Walter to take notice of Anne to little avail. But Lady Russell also opposed the match with Captain Wentworth thinking the then 19-year-old Anne would find it a hard living being a military wife.
That was some seven or so years ago. Now Elizabeth and Sir Walter have removed to Bath and Anne is to join them at Christmas. For now Anne is splitting her time between Lady Russell's home and her sister Mary's.
Where is the conflict? Why, here: Sir Walter was forced to let their grand home and move to Bath because of his debts. He has let the estate to relatives of Captain Wentworth. And now, of course, that very man is expected to come visit his sister and brother-in-law. (Well, either Frederick or his brother Edward; it has not been made clear which.) So of course Anne is on tenterhooks in case it is Frederick.
That encapsulates the goings on thus far. I'm reading some old Book of the Month Club edition from 1996 that has illustrations by Hugh Thomson, too. Quite fun.
In this one, the persecuted party is Anne Elliot, middle daughter of a baronet. She is perpetually overlooked by her family, and her one "claim to fame" is that she nearly married one Captain Frederick Wentworth except her father refused to allow such a "low" connection.
Anne lives retiringly in her sister Elizabeth's shadow. Their younger sister Mary is married and lives in the area. And their dead mother's friend Lady Russell also lives close by; Anne is used to spending a fair amount of time in her company, and is something of a favorite of Lady Russell's, though that lady has done little enough to promote Anne to her own family. I gather Lady Russell has tried to get Elizabeth and Sir Walter to take notice of Anne to little avail. But Lady Russell also opposed the match with Captain Wentworth thinking the then 19-year-old Anne would find it a hard living being a military wife.
That was some seven or so years ago. Now Elizabeth and Sir Walter have removed to Bath and Anne is to join them at Christmas. For now Anne is splitting her time between Lady Russell's home and her sister Mary's.
Where is the conflict? Why, here: Sir Walter was forced to let their grand home and move to Bath because of his debts. He has let the estate to relatives of Captain Wentworth. And now, of course, that very man is expected to come visit his sister and brother-in-law. (Well, either Frederick or his brother Edward; it has not been made clear which.) So of course Anne is on tenterhooks in case it is Frederick.
That encapsulates the goings on thus far. I'm reading some old Book of the Month Club edition from 1996 that has illustrations by Hugh Thomson, too. Quite fun.
7.14.2014
Food: Dr Pepper Vanilla Float
Had to try it. Had to. Because I love Dr Pepper, and I love ice cream, and by extension floats.
Now, upon reflection, I'm not sure what I expected. This is, for all intents and purposes, vanilla Dr Pepper. And that's fine. I'm cool with that, in theory.
Thing is, it doesn't have the full flavor of Dr Pepper. Nor does it have a very strong vanilla taste either. Except when you take that last sip from the can, which tasted very strongly of vanilla. Is the vanilla flavoring denser than the soda syrup? But it's not like I could shake the can before actually drinking, so . . . Well, I mean, I could. But I'm not that stupid, nor am I that desperate to disperse the vanilla throughout the drink.
On the plus side, this drink didn't leave the weird aftertaste in my mouth Dr Pepper sometimes does. I didn't feel an immediate need to go get a stick of gum after finishing the drink.
Bottom line, this is like Dr Pepper Jr. or something. Intern Pepper? Whatever a junior doctor is called, I guess. It's nice as a novelty, but I wouldn't drink this all the time; it will only leave me wanting the real deal. (Or, carrying on with the doctor metaphor, a second opinion.)
Now, upon reflection, I'm not sure what I expected. This is, for all intents and purposes, vanilla Dr Pepper. And that's fine. I'm cool with that, in theory.
Thing is, it doesn't have the full flavor of Dr Pepper. Nor does it have a very strong vanilla taste either. Except when you take that last sip from the can, which tasted very strongly of vanilla. Is the vanilla flavoring denser than the soda syrup? But it's not like I could shake the can before actually drinking, so . . . Well, I mean, I could. But I'm not that stupid, nor am I that desperate to disperse the vanilla throughout the drink.
On the plus side, this drink didn't leave the weird aftertaste in my mouth Dr Pepper sometimes does. I didn't feel an immediate need to go get a stick of gum after finishing the drink.
Bottom line, this is like Dr Pepper Jr. or something. Intern Pepper? Whatever a junior doctor is called, I guess. It's nice as a novelty, but I wouldn't drink this all the time; it will only leave me wanting the real deal. (Or, carrying on with the doctor metaphor, a second opinion.)
7.12.2014
Books: Cary Grant: A Class Apart by Graham McCann
I've been familiar with Cary Grant's work since I was very small. He was first known to me as an angel named Dudley. You see, my parents watched The Bishop's Wife every year at Christmas. And I, like so many, was drawn to this sophisticated man. I've since seen many of his films, though not all. And I still watch The Bishop's Wife every year, too.
So not too long ago, I thought: Why don't I know more about him? It's a mistake to assume the person on the screen is the equivalent of the person themselves, even if an actor plays a certain type. And Grant—romantic comedian, suspense hero (or anti-hero)—played a lot of types. So who was he really? I decided to read about it.
I went to Half Price Books and there were two Cary Grant biographies. A quick check on Amazon showed me which had "more stars" (that is, was better reviewed). It was between this one and Cary Grant: The Lonely Heart, and according to Amazon it was no contest. This one won. (Though, flipping idly through the other, I did find some intriguing passages.)
It's not entirely possible to be subjective when writing I biography, I don't think, and anyway, readers don't want an objective story. To remain objective would be to boil the person's life down to stale facts and figures: He was born on this day, in this place, and these were his parents . . . He went to school, here are his marks . . . He made this movie, that movie, and here are the box office totals . . . Dry stuff fit for a résumé or Wikipedia but not a book.
In this case, Mr. McCann is clearly a fan of Grant, but then so are many people. The readers of the book almost certainly would be. So maybe McCann just writes to his audience, though there is a defensiveness in his tone that it sort of strange considering he goes on about how fiercely private Grant was and then is writing a book about the man's life. The way McCann goes after other biographers of Grant, how he bitingly touches on the rumors of homosexuality, and in the epilogue of the book degrades other entertainers for more or less not living up to Grant's standards . . . There is a definite bias at work.
Not that it's a bad read. No, A Class Apart is very readable and enjoyable. Set up largely in chronological order, it is neatly arranged. McCann clearly read a lot about his subject, though it doesn't seem he spoke to anyone directly; everything appears to be culled from other books or magazine articles and interviews. I could be wrong, but that's the impression, and while I skimmed the notes and saw nothing to suggest any one-on-one conversations between McCann and anyone who knew Grant, I could have missed it. I guess many of the primary sources have since passed away themselves.
As the subtitle suggests, the book largely promotes Grant as sophisticated, intelligent, and though shy also very friendly. Not so different from his screen persona after all. But it does seem to gloss over his relationship problems, except to sympathize with Grant's failed marriages. A Class Apart downplays anything that might damage Grant's standing reputation. It brings up and then quickly buries the homosexuality rumors and moves quickly through the LSD years. In short, this isn't a "dishy" kind of book. It really seems designed to preserve the idea of Grant as set in celluloid: talented, funny, possibly with a little bit of a shadow side (but if there was one, McCann seems to posit, it wasn't his fault, it was the circumstances, the difficult studio system and wives that did it). Archie Leach appears to have been a naturally buoyant personality; only later did those aforementioned circumstances shape the more grave Cary Grant.
In any case, A Class Apart is a good primer. I would still like to read a couple other biographies about Grant, if only to pull together a few different points of view. And maybe a few of those details that McCann felt necessary to sail past.
So not too long ago, I thought: Why don't I know more about him? It's a mistake to assume the person on the screen is the equivalent of the person themselves, even if an actor plays a certain type. And Grant—romantic comedian, suspense hero (or anti-hero)—played a lot of types. So who was he really? I decided to read about it.
I went to Half Price Books and there were two Cary Grant biographies. A quick check on Amazon showed me which had "more stars" (that is, was better reviewed). It was between this one and Cary Grant: The Lonely Heart, and according to Amazon it was no contest. This one won. (Though, flipping idly through the other, I did find some intriguing passages.)
It's not entirely possible to be subjective when writing I biography, I don't think, and anyway, readers don't want an objective story. To remain objective would be to boil the person's life down to stale facts and figures: He was born on this day, in this place, and these were his parents . . . He went to school, here are his marks . . . He made this movie, that movie, and here are the box office totals . . . Dry stuff fit for a résumé or Wikipedia but not a book.
In this case, Mr. McCann is clearly a fan of Grant, but then so are many people. The readers of the book almost certainly would be. So maybe McCann just writes to his audience, though there is a defensiveness in his tone that it sort of strange considering he goes on about how fiercely private Grant was and then is writing a book about the man's life. The way McCann goes after other biographers of Grant, how he bitingly touches on the rumors of homosexuality, and in the epilogue of the book degrades other entertainers for more or less not living up to Grant's standards . . . There is a definite bias at work.
Not that it's a bad read. No, A Class Apart is very readable and enjoyable. Set up largely in chronological order, it is neatly arranged. McCann clearly read a lot about his subject, though it doesn't seem he spoke to anyone directly; everything appears to be culled from other books or magazine articles and interviews. I could be wrong, but that's the impression, and while I skimmed the notes and saw nothing to suggest any one-on-one conversations between McCann and anyone who knew Grant, I could have missed it. I guess many of the primary sources have since passed away themselves.
As the subtitle suggests, the book largely promotes Grant as sophisticated, intelligent, and though shy also very friendly. Not so different from his screen persona after all. But it does seem to gloss over his relationship problems, except to sympathize with Grant's failed marriages. A Class Apart downplays anything that might damage Grant's standing reputation. It brings up and then quickly buries the homosexuality rumors and moves quickly through the LSD years. In short, this isn't a "dishy" kind of book. It really seems designed to preserve the idea of Grant as set in celluloid: talented, funny, possibly with a little bit of a shadow side (but if there was one, McCann seems to posit, it wasn't his fault, it was the circumstances, the difficult studio system and wives that did it). Archie Leach appears to have been a naturally buoyant personality; only later did those aforementioned circumstances shape the more grave Cary Grant.
In any case, A Class Apart is a good primer. I would still like to read a couple other biographies about Grant, if only to pull together a few different points of view. And maybe a few of those details that McCann felt necessary to sail past.
7.11.2014
Favorite Movies
There's always sort of a question in my mind when someone talks about their favorite movies. Because what makes a movie a favorite? Is it something that astounded you when you first saw it? Something that influenced you in some way? Or just something that stayed with you? Maybe it's just a movie you watched over and over as a kid; I have a few of those myself.
And of course the list of favorite movies changes. Depends on the day, one's mood, and whether any great new movies can be added to the list. Weirdly enough, though, with so much out there, I find my favorites are still the older movies. I am less inclined to repeatedly watch newer films. Maybe it's elitist of me, or just nostalgic—maybe I'm getting old—but they just don't make 'em like they used to.
With all this in mind, some of my all-time favorite movies (at least today) are (in chronological order):
And of course the list of favorite movies changes. Depends on the day, one's mood, and whether any great new movies can be added to the list. Weirdly enough, though, with so much out there, I find my favorites are still the older movies. I am less inclined to repeatedly watch newer films. Maybe it's elitist of me, or just nostalgic—maybe I'm getting old—but they just don't make 'em like they used to.
With all this in mind, some of my all-time favorite movies (at least today) are (in chronological order):
- The Bishop's Wife - watched it every year at Christmas growing up and still do
- Rope - though I didn't see it until film school, this is a movie I come back to again and again; it amazed me then and I love it still, try to watch it at least every couple years and would love to see the stage version
- The Innocents - because I love the Henry James story and this is an appropriately creepy adaptation of it
- Summer Magic - I spent a summer in the 80s eating up this cute Disney pic
- My Fair Lady - my favorite musical, was also lucky enough to see the stage version featuring Richard Chamberlain
- Grease - loved it as a kid and have to watch it every time it's on television
- Watership Down - both the book and animated feature left a huge impression on me
- Raiders of the Lost Ark - first movie I can remember seeing in a cinema, and I went home and pretended to be "Petey" (I misunderstood the name), would later play Indiana Jones often with my best friend.
- Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan - would watch this on VHS often, along with Search for Spock
- The Secret of NIMH - another one my best friend and I would play
- Young Sherlock Holmes - watched this one every day after school (not an exaggeration) and played it with my best friend as well
- Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - memento of a fabulous summer spent with my best friends
- Jurassic Park - holds the record for the movie I've seen most times in a cinema
- Anastasia - my favorite animated feature
- The Matrix - runner up to Jurassic Park; too bad about those other two movies
- Hot Fuzz - I could watch this one over and over (and I have)
7.08.2014
Movies: Saving Mr. Banks
I don't know anything about P.L. Travers outside what Wikipedia has to say. And I don't know anything about Mary Poppins except what I've seen in the Disney film (the book was, alas, not part of my childhood . . . or adulthood, for that matter). So I have no way of knowing how accurate Saving Mr. Banks is in terms of whether Travers was really so difficult and how she received Disney's movie version of her book. I suspect, perhaps, not very.
That she'd cried at the premiere—I'd heard that before. But were they tears of anger? Or, as Saving Mr. Banks suggests, was she moved by the movie?
I can't say Saving Mr. Banks entertained me much. And it was a sadder story than I had expected, what with all the flashbacks to Travers' childhood and the death of her father. I was confused a bit by her not wanting such fanciful elements in the movie, since her father was portrayed as having great imagination. If she wanted to honor her father, would she not want to include such flights of fancy? But then again, that imagination was part of what hindered her father and kept getting him fired, so . . . Maybe she felt if he'd been more realistic and so forth, he'd have done better and lived longer. (But then he'd have been a different person, wouldn't he? Not the same father she'd adored.)
Well, at least the movie gave me that much to consider. But now what I really want to know is the truth of the matter. I may, after I finish reading this Cary Grant biography, have to read more about Travers. I may even read Mary Poppins.
It must be the height of self-satisfaction on the part of the Disney corporation, though, to put forth the notion that they (Disney himself, along with his employees) got through to Travers and touched her heart in some way. Not only that, but that they spurred her to write more books! It was all them! Disney was as good as a therapist! Even the chauffeur helped!
Again, I really don't know how accurate any of it is. But the victors write the history books, right? And produce the movies, too.
That she'd cried at the premiere—I'd heard that before. But were they tears of anger? Or, as Saving Mr. Banks suggests, was she moved by the movie?
I can't say Saving Mr. Banks entertained me much. And it was a sadder story than I had expected, what with all the flashbacks to Travers' childhood and the death of her father. I was confused a bit by her not wanting such fanciful elements in the movie, since her father was portrayed as having great imagination. If she wanted to honor her father, would she not want to include such flights of fancy? But then again, that imagination was part of what hindered her father and kept getting him fired, so . . . Maybe she felt if he'd been more realistic and so forth, he'd have done better and lived longer. (But then he'd have been a different person, wouldn't he? Not the same father she'd adored.)
Well, at least the movie gave me that much to consider. But now what I really want to know is the truth of the matter. I may, after I finish reading this Cary Grant biography, have to read more about Travers. I may even read Mary Poppins.
It must be the height of self-satisfaction on the part of the Disney corporation, though, to put forth the notion that they (Disney himself, along with his employees) got through to Travers and touched her heart in some way. Not only that, but that they spurred her to write more books! It was all them! Disney was as good as a therapist! Even the chauffeur helped!
Again, I really don't know how accurate any of it is. But the victors write the history books, right? And produce the movies, too.
7.07.2014
Television: 24 & The Leftovers
I finally gave up on 24: Live Another Day.
I know, I know—I stuck it out for so long, why give up now? Well, I got nearly to the end of the June 23rd episode that was sitting on my DVR and realized I'd barely seen any of it because I was more interested in Bejeweled. That's a pretty bad sign. And I still had another episode waiting on my DVR, and I was faced with another hour airing tonight, and . . . All at once it was a chore rather than entertainment. And since I watch TV to be entertained, when it stops being fun . . . I stop watching.
Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
The Leftovers, on the other had, actually got more interesting. Is Garvey going crazy? How much of all this is in his head? Getting a glimpse of his dad and seeing that maybe it runs in the family . . . And yet Jill did seem to see the unnamed man on the doorstep . . . Little tidbits like the video interviews for "survivor" benefits or whatever add texture and depth to what is going on in the world. Though why would an agency feel the need to compensate people for what insurance would surely label an "act of God"? Is this a government agency or a private non-profit or what? Hmm.
And we also saw the source of tension between Lucy and Kevin; seems she and Kevin's dad have a thing?
I don't much like Liv Tyler, and Jill's friend is annoying, but I can get past that (for now). Should be interesting to see Christopher Eccleston's character's story next week.
I know, I know—I stuck it out for so long, why give up now? Well, I got nearly to the end of the June 23rd episode that was sitting on my DVR and realized I'd barely seen any of it because I was more interested in Bejeweled. That's a pretty bad sign. And I still had another episode waiting on my DVR, and I was faced with another hour airing tonight, and . . . All at once it was a chore rather than entertainment. And since I watch TV to be entertained, when it stops being fun . . . I stop watching.
Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
The Leftovers, on the other had, actually got more interesting. Is Garvey going crazy? How much of all this is in his head? Getting a glimpse of his dad and seeing that maybe it runs in the family . . . And yet Jill did seem to see the unnamed man on the doorstep . . . Little tidbits like the video interviews for "survivor" benefits or whatever add texture and depth to what is going on in the world. Though why would an agency feel the need to compensate people for what insurance would surely label an "act of God"? Is this a government agency or a private non-profit or what? Hmm.
And we also saw the source of tension between Lucy and Kevin; seems she and Kevin's dad have a thing?
I don't much like Liv Tyler, and Jill's friend is annoying, but I can get past that (for now). Should be interesting to see Christopher Eccleston's character's story next week.
7.06.2014
Movies: X-Men: Days of Future Past
Starring: Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Nicholas Hoult, Jennifer Lawrence (and ~10 mins of Patrick Steward and Ian McKellen)
Directed By: Bryan Singer
Written By: Simon Kinberg
20th Century Fox/Marvel
PG-13; 131 mins
4.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I only went to see this one because I didn't want to see Transformers or any of the other crap that's out there on offer at the moment. And I was surprised to see the cinema was still pretty full, even though this film has been out for several weeks now. But maybe that's because they'd slotted this one into a smaller theater, giving the illusion of a packed house. Let's just say people were having trouble finding seats before all was said and done.
As for the movie itself, I really enjoyed it. The right mixture of action and humor, and well paced besides. I was worried I'd have to dredge up some kind of memory of all the previous X-Men movies but it wasn't really necessary. I know the key players, and that was sufficient to enjoy the show.
The plot is roughly thus: Some years in the future (circa . . . 2023?) there is a nasty war against Mutants—and against any humans who support them. Trask Industries has created Sentinels, which are designed to hunt and destroy Mutants and yet use DNA from Mystique in order to function (they can change and adapt to any powers the Mutants they fight might try to use against them). Only a small band of Mutants still survive.
Also, these Sentinels are able to identify potential Mutants—anyone with the genetic makeup that might turn them or their children, etc., into Mutants—and so they destroy them, too. So while it would seem at first that the Sentinels protected society from the Mutants (assuming, of course, "normal" people needed to be protected from Mutants), these protectors eventually also turned on the people themselves . . . Although it's difficult to tell what the percentages are. I mean, how many people have the potential for mutation? And if Mutants really are the next wave in evolution—or would have been, anyway—does that mean more and more people are being born with that potential? And so more and more people are being wiped out by Sentinels? Who is controlling these things? Or have they taken on lives of their own?
And if the Sentinels use Mutant DNA, why don't they destroy one another?
Whatever. Bottom line is: The future is a bad, bad time. So it's decided that Kitty needs to send Logan (aka Wolverine, aka Hugh Jackman) back to 1973 to stop Mystique from killing Trask because that's when she was captured and they took her DNA and upped the Sentinels' programming.
Here is where the fun begins, naturally, with Logan tracking down a young Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr (Magneto). I'll admit I did have a bit of private fun with James McAvoy as Charles—like, you know, thinking that maybe his legs had problems because they were goat legs, and when he asked Logan, "What do you want?" nothing would have made me happier than to hear, "Give me back my socks, you goat bastard." All that aside, though, McAvoy did a great job, as did Jackman, Fassbender, and Hoult. And of course Peter Dinklage as Trask was a brilliant bit of casting. I'll admit I'm no Jennifer Lawrence fan; I think her talent is more in picking juicy roles than in actual acting.
Especially good, though, was Evan Peters as Quicksilver, and he stole the movie, even though he had only a few scenes.
There were plenty of moments CinemaSins could have fun with, like why Erik would bother to rip the door off a metal room if he's then going to rip the whole side open, or why the Sentinels don't kill him first when he instructs them to "do what [they're] made to do." But despite all the little hiccoughs, Days of Future Past was highly entertaining. Exactly the right length, too; these days so many action films push the envelope by running 2.5 to 3 hours long for no good reason except to add more FX. When the plot is already thin, you really shouldn't risk stretching it like that.
But here the plot wasn't thin. In fact, it was remarkably straightforward. And if there were a few holes, well, that was okay. Because the overall design was pretty good.
Directed By: Bryan Singer
Written By: Simon Kinberg
20th Century Fox/Marvel
PG-13; 131 mins
4.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I only went to see this one because I didn't want to see Transformers or any of the other crap that's out there on offer at the moment. And I was surprised to see the cinema was still pretty full, even though this film has been out for several weeks now. But maybe that's because they'd slotted this one into a smaller theater, giving the illusion of a packed house. Let's just say people were having trouble finding seats before all was said and done.
As for the movie itself, I really enjoyed it. The right mixture of action and humor, and well paced besides. I was worried I'd have to dredge up some kind of memory of all the previous X-Men movies but it wasn't really necessary. I know the key players, and that was sufficient to enjoy the show.
The plot is roughly thus: Some years in the future (circa . . . 2023?) there is a nasty war against Mutants—and against any humans who support them. Trask Industries has created Sentinels, which are designed to hunt and destroy Mutants and yet use DNA from Mystique in order to function (they can change and adapt to any powers the Mutants they fight might try to use against them). Only a small band of Mutants still survive.
Also, these Sentinels are able to identify potential Mutants—anyone with the genetic makeup that might turn them or their children, etc., into Mutants—and so they destroy them, too. So while it would seem at first that the Sentinels protected society from the Mutants (assuming, of course, "normal" people needed to be protected from Mutants), these protectors eventually also turned on the people themselves . . . Although it's difficult to tell what the percentages are. I mean, how many people have the potential for mutation? And if Mutants really are the next wave in evolution—or would have been, anyway—does that mean more and more people are being born with that potential? And so more and more people are being wiped out by Sentinels? Who is controlling these things? Or have they taken on lives of their own?
And if the Sentinels use Mutant DNA, why don't they destroy one another?
Whatever. Bottom line is: The future is a bad, bad time. So it's decided that Kitty needs to send Logan (aka Wolverine, aka Hugh Jackman) back to 1973 to stop Mystique from killing Trask because that's when she was captured and they took her DNA and upped the Sentinels' programming.
Here is where the fun begins, naturally, with Logan tracking down a young Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr (Magneto). I'll admit I did have a bit of private fun with James McAvoy as Charles—like, you know, thinking that maybe his legs had problems because they were goat legs, and when he asked Logan, "What do you want?" nothing would have made me happier than to hear, "Give me back my socks, you goat bastard." All that aside, though, McAvoy did a great job, as did Jackman, Fassbender, and Hoult. And of course Peter Dinklage as Trask was a brilliant bit of casting. I'll admit I'm no Jennifer Lawrence fan; I think her talent is more in picking juicy roles than in actual acting.
Especially good, though, was Evan Peters as Quicksilver, and he stole the movie, even though he had only a few scenes.
There were plenty of moments CinemaSins could have fun with, like why Erik would bother to rip the door off a metal room if he's then going to rip the whole side open, or why the Sentinels don't kill him first when he instructs them to "do what [they're] made to do." But despite all the little hiccoughs, Days of Future Past was highly entertaining. Exactly the right length, too; these days so many action films push the envelope by running 2.5 to 3 hours long for no good reason except to add more FX. When the plot is already thin, you really shouldn't risk stretching it like that.
But here the plot wasn't thin. In fact, it was remarkably straightforward. And if there were a few holes, well, that was okay. Because the overall design was pretty good.
7.04.2014
Television: Tyrant
I tried. I really did.
I got 15 to 20 minutes in. And I wanted to watch the whole pilot, give the show a fair shot, but . . . I just couldn't take any more.
In my review of The Leftovers I fussed a bit about the mode of throwing a bunch of bits and pieces at the audience in the hopes it will intrigue viewers enough to stick around and see how they fit together later. Tyrant goes the other way, being almost too linear and slow-paced. It was really almost excruciating to watch. It's like the writers were working overtime to establish character, but as viewers we "got it" within the first few minutes. No need to drag things on and out.
At one point I felt like I was watching Downton Abbey via a modern Middle East filter. So maybe I'll be the odd person out and one of few who don't love Tyrant. Because I've tried to watch Downton Abbey, too, and while I can appreciate the fine acting and direction and even the story itself, it bores me to tears. For me, the pace is akin to a very, very slow cart wheel trying to get unstuck from a muddy rut. I kind of want to see if and when it gets unstuck, but the longer it goes on trying to get free, the less I care.
In what I saw of Tyrant the kids were such stereotypes, too. The son who takes to being a member of the royal family and the high style of living versus the daughter who sides with her dad and would rather remain disassociated from all that. And the wife is, of course, the American Barbie blonde that stands in such contrast to all the Middle Easterners. Then there is the evil, cruel brother who is heir to the throne. (Mind, this is just what I culled from those first 15–20 minutes.) All pretty basic and none of it compelling.
One more show I can strike off my list.
I got 15 to 20 minutes in. And I wanted to watch the whole pilot, give the show a fair shot, but . . . I just couldn't take any more.
In my review of The Leftovers I fussed a bit about the mode of throwing a bunch of bits and pieces at the audience in the hopes it will intrigue viewers enough to stick around and see how they fit together later. Tyrant goes the other way, being almost too linear and slow-paced. It was really almost excruciating to watch. It's like the writers were working overtime to establish character, but as viewers we "got it" within the first few minutes. No need to drag things on and out.
At one point I felt like I was watching Downton Abbey via a modern Middle East filter. So maybe I'll be the odd person out and one of few who don't love Tyrant. Because I've tried to watch Downton Abbey, too, and while I can appreciate the fine acting and direction and even the story itself, it bores me to tears. For me, the pace is akin to a very, very slow cart wheel trying to get unstuck from a muddy rut. I kind of want to see if and when it gets unstuck, but the longer it goes on trying to get free, the less I care.
In what I saw of Tyrant the kids were such stereotypes, too. The son who takes to being a member of the royal family and the high style of living versus the daughter who sides with her dad and would rather remain disassociated from all that. And the wife is, of course, the American Barbie blonde that stands in such contrast to all the Middle Easterners. Then there is the evil, cruel brother who is heir to the throne. (Mind, this is just what I culled from those first 15–20 minutes.) All pretty basic and none of it compelling.
One more show I can strike off my list.
7.02.2014
Books: The Magicians and Mrs. Quent by Galen Beckett
I happened across this book while killing time in a bookstore. I didn't buy it right away but made a note of the title and then finally got around to reading it. There are two more in the series after this one.
The book is incredibly well written. Sort of a mix of Regency and fantasy, set in an alternate but very similar universe to ours. The country of Altania is clearly Great Britain, with Torland in the north as a stand-in for Scotland. Invarel = London and so on. And in this relatable but slightly different world, magic is, if not common, not unheard of either. In fact, in some circles it is quite fashionable to be a magician. (Witches, however, are not to be borne.)
Beckett populates his story with interesting characters like Miss Ivy Lockwell, whose father was once a magician himself and has left her a riddle to solve. And Mr. Rafferty, son of Lord Rafferty, who discovers he comes from an ancient line of magicians and has a talent for magic. Meanwhile his friend Eldyn is a hard luck case roped into treasonous work by a highwayman. Yet he also has an aptitude for magic; he can cloak himself in shadows and more or less make himself invisible.
All this against a backdrop worthy of Austen or the Brontës. From Invarel we spend the middle of the book on the windswept countryside of Heathcrest before returning to the city . . . Though I must say the shift in POV threw me a bit. The first and third parts of the book are third person omniscient but the middle is told in first person by Ivy. While I understand why, I didn't care for it as much. (I also don't love the cover image, though it is true enough to the book, I suppose.)
Overall, however, the book kept me engrossed. Toward the end, things moved quickly—almost too fast in comparison to all the build up. But there is much yet set up for the subsequent novels, which I look forward to reading in good time.
The book is incredibly well written. Sort of a mix of Regency and fantasy, set in an alternate but very similar universe to ours. The country of Altania is clearly Great Britain, with Torland in the north as a stand-in for Scotland. Invarel = London and so on. And in this relatable but slightly different world, magic is, if not common, not unheard of either. In fact, in some circles it is quite fashionable to be a magician. (Witches, however, are not to be borne.)
Beckett populates his story with interesting characters like Miss Ivy Lockwell, whose father was once a magician himself and has left her a riddle to solve. And Mr. Rafferty, son of Lord Rafferty, who discovers he comes from an ancient line of magicians and has a talent for magic. Meanwhile his friend Eldyn is a hard luck case roped into treasonous work by a highwayman. Yet he also has an aptitude for magic; he can cloak himself in shadows and more or less make himself invisible.
All this against a backdrop worthy of Austen or the Brontës. From Invarel we spend the middle of the book on the windswept countryside of Heathcrest before returning to the city . . . Though I must say the shift in POV threw me a bit. The first and third parts of the book are third person omniscient but the middle is told in first person by Ivy. While I understand why, I didn't care for it as much. (I also don't love the cover image, though it is true enough to the book, I suppose.)
Overall, however, the book kept me engrossed. Toward the end, things moved quickly—almost too fast in comparison to all the build up. But there is much yet set up for the subsequent novels, which I look forward to reading in good time.
Television: The Leftovers, "Pilot"
A slow start. It seems to be the fad these days to throw a lot of pieces of information into the air and let them scatter: here's a character and a flashback, here's another person, oh and look! they're related! Things of that sort. I suppose it's meant to keep people actively engaged in the story, but I find it annoying. And tiring. And boring now because everybody does it.
I dig having multiple story lines, but there's always going to be a few that are stronger and more interesting than the others. Which means when the show starts to focus on a less interesting plot, viewers sort of deflate and groan, "This again."
Anyway, for those who were trying to figure out from the cryptic previews what the show is actually about—is it the Rapture? what is it?—it's pretty much exactly what the ads said: A bunch of people all over the world disappeared on October 14. No one knows why or where they went or anything. Fast forward three years and the world is still hung up on this mass disappearance. Which makes sense, I guess . . . Or maybe it's just that the episode focused on the third anniversary of the event. Maybe on a normal day no one really talks or thinks much about it any more. It was difficult to tell from the episode.
At the very least, the characters we're dealing with are hung up on it. Justin Theroux plays Kevin Garvey, police chief of the very generically named Mapleton. His life has unraveled since the sudden disappearance, not because he lost anyone (his immediate family seems to be accounted for) but because it broke his family apart in other ways. His wife joined the Guilty Remnant, a cult-like group that smokes but won't speak. His son has hared off to help some kind of modern messiah named Wayne. And his daughter Jill is acting out in bizarre ways. Kevin himself seems to be prone to drinking and hallucinations.
I realize The Leftovers is a drama, but I found the pacing of the pilot somewhat slow. I spent a lot of time thinking, Yes, we get it, move along. There was a desire in the writing and/or direction to linger a little too long on people and things. That was when I got bored and played Bookworm on my iPhone.
But there are interesting elements. Something seems to be building, and I'm curious to see what might happen. What's Wayne's deal, for example? Why does Tom need to guard Christine, and why would Wayne put Tom in that situation knowing full well that Tom is in lust with Christine to begin with? I also want more of Chris Eccleston's character. His job this episode was a tidy bit of exposition declaring it wasn't the biblical Rapture because the people taken weren't especially good—one was a child abuser, for instance. Answers that question, I suppose, and with so many people in the world gone, can anyone hope to find a common denominator?
Here's hoping, then, that The Leftovers picks up the pace a bit and delivers on all the curiosities it has presented. I'll give it another couple episodes (assuming it doesn't bore me too much) and see if it makes any real progress.
I dig having multiple story lines, but there's always going to be a few that are stronger and more interesting than the others. Which means when the show starts to focus on a less interesting plot, viewers sort of deflate and groan, "This again."
Anyway, for those who were trying to figure out from the cryptic previews what the show is actually about—is it the Rapture? what is it?—it's pretty much exactly what the ads said: A bunch of people all over the world disappeared on October 14. No one knows why or where they went or anything. Fast forward three years and the world is still hung up on this mass disappearance. Which makes sense, I guess . . . Or maybe it's just that the episode focused on the third anniversary of the event. Maybe on a normal day no one really talks or thinks much about it any more. It was difficult to tell from the episode.
At the very least, the characters we're dealing with are hung up on it. Justin Theroux plays Kevin Garvey, police chief of the very generically named Mapleton. His life has unraveled since the sudden disappearance, not because he lost anyone (his immediate family seems to be accounted for) but because it broke his family apart in other ways. His wife joined the Guilty Remnant, a cult-like group that smokes but won't speak. His son has hared off to help some kind of modern messiah named Wayne. And his daughter Jill is acting out in bizarre ways. Kevin himself seems to be prone to drinking and hallucinations.
I realize The Leftovers is a drama, but I found the pacing of the pilot somewhat slow. I spent a lot of time thinking, Yes, we get it, move along. There was a desire in the writing and/or direction to linger a little too long on people and things. That was when I got bored and played Bookworm on my iPhone.
But there are interesting elements. Something seems to be building, and I'm curious to see what might happen. What's Wayne's deal, for example? Why does Tom need to guard Christine, and why would Wayne put Tom in that situation knowing full well that Tom is in lust with Christine to begin with? I also want more of Chris Eccleston's character. His job this episode was a tidy bit of exposition declaring it wasn't the biblical Rapture because the people taken weren't especially good—one was a child abuser, for instance. Answers that question, I suppose, and with so many people in the world gone, can anyone hope to find a common denominator?
Here's hoping, then, that The Leftovers picks up the pace a bit and delivers on all the curiosities it has presented. I'll give it another couple episodes (assuming it doesn't bore me too much) and see if it makes any real progress.
7.01.2014
Television: Catching Up
Sorry for my silence the past week; I was away at a family reunion. I do plan to begin catching up on 24 and trying The Leftovers and Tyrant, all of which are waiting for me on my DVR. I managed to watch Last Week Tonight with John Oliver at least; I love that show. Ages ago, before I had kids, I would stay up and watch The Daily Show and The Colbert Report . . . Maybe I should go back to those. But in the meantime, I wait all week for John Oliver. Maybe righteous anger at the U.S. comes across better from a transplanted Brit.
Of course the other big news is Community will have a 13-episode sixth season thanks to Yahoo! That's pretty stellar. I'm finding it more and more difficult to locate decent comedies, so I'm glad Community will be around to make me laugh a little longer.
And Doctor Who has a premiere date of 23 August. I'll be away on a writing retreat that weekend but at least one of the other writers I'll be hanging with is a big DW fan, so maybe we can schedule in a viewing break.
I did watch the second part of The Escape Artist and very much enjoyed it. But then I liked it when it was Cape Fear, too.
Of course the other big news is Community will have a 13-episode sixth season thanks to Yahoo! That's pretty stellar. I'm finding it more and more difficult to locate decent comedies, so I'm glad Community will be around to make me laugh a little longer.
And Doctor Who has a premiere date of 23 August. I'll be away on a writing retreat that weekend but at least one of the other writers I'll be hanging with is a big DW fan, so maybe we can schedule in a viewing break.
I did watch the second part of The Escape Artist and very much enjoyed it. But then I liked it when it was Cape Fear, too.
6.20.2014
Movies: 22 Jump Street
Starring: Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill, Ice Cube
Directed By: Phil Lord & Christopher Miller
Written By: Michael Bacall, Oren Uziel, Rodney Rothman (screenplay), story by Michael Bacall & Jonah Hill
Columbia/MGM, 2014
R; 112 mins
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Directed By: Phil Lord & Christopher Miller
Written By: Michael Bacall, Oren Uziel, Rodney Rothman (screenplay), story by Michael Bacall & Jonah Hill
Columbia/MGM, 2014
R; 112 mins
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Once again, expectation makes all the difference. I really enjoyed 21 Jump Street when we watched it one night at home long after the cinema release, mainly because I had zero expectations for it. I'd never seen the television show, though I'd had friends who'd loved it, so I went in with a working understanding of what it was about. But other than that . . . Nothing. Which led to me laughing like mad when I finally saw the movie.
But a sequel necessarily carries expectations. Even when I told myself not to hope for too much, I couldn't help expecting a certain level of funny. And I feel 22 Jump Street met that level of expectation, but did not exceed it.
Oh, I laughed. At some points I was laughing when the people around me weren't. (They didn't seem to get the fourth wall jokes about budgets and Plainview Red Herrings.) And what saves 22 Jump Street is that it moves along quickly. There are no lulls. So while I was way ahead of the main characters in terms of their investigation, I was still pulled along by the force of plot momentum, with eddies of funny swirling through the current. Ice Cube did an especially good job, and Tatum and Hill were at par. Though I do kind of wish we could not lean so much on "ha-ha, it's like they're gay" as a punchline.
Bonus points to the end credit sequence in which Seth Rogan is substituted for Jonah Hill.
In all, an enjoyable romp that was exactly what I expected it to be.
6.19.2014
Television: Fargo, "Morton's Fork"
So I guess there was some fuss about feminism? About how Molly Solverson—after being set up as the smartest gal in the room and all—ends up not being the one to save the day? Cuz instead she's reduced to pregnant woman needing to be protected by father and husband or whatever?
I dunno. I mean, I've said before that I didn't really see Molly as all that to begin with. At best she was an example of slow and steady winning the race. She was smart in her way, and she did scuttle around the barriers when people told her to stop and drop it, but . . . ::shrug:: I just never could get behind her as a protagonist. It's like cheering for a C student because she's in a room full of failing classmates.
Some of the fuss stemmed from the useless Grimly suddenly being elevated to hero status when he acts on a hunch that allows him to corner and kill Malvo, thus slaying the monster of the piece. I'll admit it was odd to have Grimly, you know, do something. After doing a whole hell of a lot of nothing. But at the same time this illustrated the lengths to which he was willing to go to protect his family. The stark difference between Grimly and Lester Nygaard is that Les only thinks of himself, and that ends up being a large part of Lester's undoing.
The sum total of the series (this season, anyway) is: tortoises win. Molly is a tortoise. Malvo is a hare. Lester started as a tortoise but tries to become a hare, and look what that gets him. Hares run over everything in their paths and leave destruction in their wakes. Tortoises, meanwhile, plod steadily along. If you think about tortoises . . . They live a long time and exist largely untouched by outside forces.
Fargo was an interesting series—good characterization and character arcs, very nicely filmed—and I'm curious to see what the next season will bring.
I dunno. I mean, I've said before that I didn't really see Molly as all that to begin with. At best she was an example of slow and steady winning the race. She was smart in her way, and she did scuttle around the barriers when people told her to stop and drop it, but . . . ::shrug:: I just never could get behind her as a protagonist. It's like cheering for a C student because she's in a room full of failing classmates.
Some of the fuss stemmed from the useless Grimly suddenly being elevated to hero status when he acts on a hunch that allows him to corner and kill Malvo, thus slaying the monster of the piece. I'll admit it was odd to have Grimly, you know, do something. After doing a whole hell of a lot of nothing. But at the same time this illustrated the lengths to which he was willing to go to protect his family. The stark difference between Grimly and Lester Nygaard is that Les only thinks of himself, and that ends up being a large part of Lester's undoing.
The sum total of the series (this season, anyway) is: tortoises win. Molly is a tortoise. Malvo is a hare. Lester started as a tortoise but tries to become a hare, and look what that gets him. Hares run over everything in their paths and leave destruction in their wakes. Tortoises, meanwhile, plod steadily along. If you think about tortoises . . . They live a long time and exist largely untouched by outside forces.
Fargo was an interesting series—good characterization and character arcs, very nicely filmed—and I'm curious to see what the next season will bring.
Television: The Escape Artist (Part 1)
I think the slow start and only intermittent action in this mini—being about lawyers, it's necessarily very talky—may work against it for the average American audiences, but after a somewhat slow start, I found The Escape Artist enjoyable, if horrific (which is the point). I won't deny that a large part of my pleasure is derived from David Tennant, whom I always enjoy. But he's almost upstaged by the creepiness of Toby Kebbell.
Tennant stars as Will Burton, a barrister (in American he's a defense lawyer, possibly even a public defender, though I admit my understanding of the nuances of the UK's legal system are beyond me) who has never lost a case. I'll go out on a limb and say I find this a bit over the top as a rule—no one never loses—but Will is young, so maybe he just has the odds in his favor?
Fine, fine. But then Will is given the defense [defence, if you're British] of Liam Foyle, a man accused of the torture and murder of a young woman. Liam is every kind of creepy, and the case against him seems pretty solid (not helped by Liam being the kind of person a jury would like to lock up just on principle), but Will gets Liam off on a technicality. Due process and all that.
But then Will makes the mistake of refusing to shake Liam's hand at the end of it all.
And Liam, being a creep of the first order, takes that personally.
And here's where the plot really kicked in and things began to happen as Liam stalks Will's family and then murders Will's wife. So now we'll have another trial, and yet Liam is being defended by Will's greatest rival Maggie (Sophie Okonedo, doing a fine job as usual), who is tired of being second fiddle to Will's bright and rising star. (Note: Maggie does shake Liam's hand, though she's quick to use hand sanitizer once he's walked away.)
Meanwhile, Will cannot be directly involved with the prosecution and so champs the bit while his firm mounts its case. Will is also dealing with the domestic fallout of his wife's murder as he is now single parent to their son Jamie. Jamie may or may not have seen the killer; he was hiding (or had been locked in?) a hope chest during the murder.
The scariest moment came when Liam was released on bail and Will found out somewhat later and had to race to make sure Jamie made it home from school.
As I mentioned, a slow start, and American sensibilities may find The Escape Artist slower than they're used to. But I'm curious enough to see how it ends—and I enjoy David Tennant enough—that I'll watch the rest.
Tennant stars as Will Burton, a barrister (in American he's a defense lawyer, possibly even a public defender, though I admit my understanding of the nuances of the UK's legal system are beyond me) who has never lost a case. I'll go out on a limb and say I find this a bit over the top as a rule—no one never loses—but Will is young, so maybe he just has the odds in his favor?
Fine, fine. But then Will is given the defense [defence, if you're British] of Liam Foyle, a man accused of the torture and murder of a young woman. Liam is every kind of creepy, and the case against him seems pretty solid (not helped by Liam being the kind of person a jury would like to lock up just on principle), but Will gets Liam off on a technicality. Due process and all that.
But then Will makes the mistake of refusing to shake Liam's hand at the end of it all.
And Liam, being a creep of the first order, takes that personally.
And here's where the plot really kicked in and things began to happen as Liam stalks Will's family and then murders Will's wife. So now we'll have another trial, and yet Liam is being defended by Will's greatest rival Maggie (Sophie Okonedo, doing a fine job as usual), who is tired of being second fiddle to Will's bright and rising star. (Note: Maggie does shake Liam's hand, though she's quick to use hand sanitizer once he's walked away.)
Meanwhile, Will cannot be directly involved with the prosecution and so champs the bit while his firm mounts its case. Will is also dealing with the domestic fallout of his wife's murder as he is now single parent to their son Jamie. Jamie may or may not have seen the killer; he was hiding (or had been locked in?) a hope chest during the murder.
The scariest moment came when Liam was released on bail and Will found out somewhat later and had to race to make sure Jamie made it home from school.
As I mentioned, a slow start, and American sensibilities may find The Escape Artist slower than they're used to. But I'm curious enough to see how it ends—and I enjoy David Tennant enough—that I'll watch the rest.
6.17.2014
Television: 24: Live Another Day, "6:00 p.m.–7:00 p.m."
If you came looking last week, you'll have noticed I didn't even bother with a recap. There's very little to say because this mini is not the action-packed, fast-paced 24 we're all used to. I can sum up last night's episode in one sentence: President William Devane gets blown up in Wembley Stadium by a drone missile. The Brits won't be too broken up about the U.S. president, I'm sure, but they're not going to be happy about the state of their football [soccer] pitch.
BTW, how was it just fine—completely unremarkable, even—to land a helicopter in the Wembley Stadium car park [parking lot]? I guess having those "codes" or whatever made the difference? Security knew to expect a helicopter? Were told to just ignore it? Sure, okay.
What else is there? Navarro is still the mole, working with Chloe's "friend" Cross. They killed that one little computer guy. Wannabe Sansa also is, if not dead, very nearly. (Did she die? Do I care?)
Now we're set up with Jack spending the final four hours seeking revenge for the president's death. And Mummy fighting with her son over whether or not to honor her word and destroy the remaining renegade drones. (Terror Son is keen to blow more shit up.) And we'll need to ferret (ha!) out Navarro and Cross as well. And find a vice president to swear in. And I'm sure we'll have to deal with more of Audrey's overacting. Bullet to the head should clear that right up.
BTW, how was it just fine—completely unremarkable, even—to land a helicopter in the Wembley Stadium car park [parking lot]? I guess having those "codes" or whatever made the difference? Security knew to expect a helicopter? Were told to just ignore it? Sure, okay.
What else is there? Navarro is still the mole, working with Chloe's "friend" Cross. They killed that one little computer guy. Wannabe Sansa also is, if not dead, very nearly. (Did she die? Do I care?)
Now we're set up with Jack spending the final four hours seeking revenge for the president's death. And Mummy fighting with her son over whether or not to honor her word and destroy the remaining renegade drones. (Terror Son is keen to blow more shit up.) And we'll need to ferret (ha!) out Navarro and Cross as well. And find a vice president to swear in. And I'm sure we'll have to deal with more of Audrey's overacting. Bullet to the head should clear that right up.
6.16.2014
Television: Those Computer Shows
So I tried Silicon Valley and I tried Halt and Catch Fire and . . . Nah.
Silicon Valley just wasn't funny. I'm sure it is to some people—it's been renewed for another season and seems to be doing well—but its humor didn't appeal to me. Maybe it got funnier? I only watched one and a half episodes. I get the idea that people want to see the underdogs win. It's a "revenge of the nerds" kind of thing, and in the tech world it's funny to think there's still a sense of the "jock" techies versus the nerdy ones, but . . . Whatever. It felt to me like HBO was trying to find a new Entourage, the problem being Silicon Valley's niche is much smaller than the vicarious wish fulfillment of running around and having adventures with a movie star.
And Halt and Catch Fire, well, I just don't find the characters at all engaging. And watching people scrabble for funding and try and find ways to cram more computer into less space . . . If I wanted to watch people struggle to problem solve, I'd go back to working in an office. Halt and Catch Fire really needs better characterization and more interesting interactions. But as of now, I've cut it from my DVR.
Things I'll be trying soon: The Leftovers (though I'm sick to death of the ads) and Tyrant.
Silicon Valley just wasn't funny. I'm sure it is to some people—it's been renewed for another season and seems to be doing well—but its humor didn't appeal to me. Maybe it got funnier? I only watched one and a half episodes. I get the idea that people want to see the underdogs win. It's a "revenge of the nerds" kind of thing, and in the tech world it's funny to think there's still a sense of the "jock" techies versus the nerdy ones, but . . . Whatever. It felt to me like HBO was trying to find a new Entourage, the problem being Silicon Valley's niche is much smaller than the vicarious wish fulfillment of running around and having adventures with a movie star.
And Halt and Catch Fire, well, I just don't find the characters at all engaging. And watching people scrabble for funding and try and find ways to cram more computer into less space . . . If I wanted to watch people struggle to problem solve, I'd go back to working in an office. Halt and Catch Fire really needs better characterization and more interesting interactions. But as of now, I've cut it from my DVR.
Things I'll be trying soon: The Leftovers (though I'm sick to death of the ads) and Tyrant.
Blockbuster Fatigue
I was trying to find something to watch the other night—you know, a movie. I scrolled through all the new On Demand options and everything that was "hot" on Netflix . . . And it was all sci-fi and action-adventure and big-scale crap. And I wasn't in the mood for that.
Seriously, my eyes started to glaze over. Every option looked alike. Even the posters, all blues and blacks and silvers . . . Every now and then a brownish one that made me think of pollution . . .
Sigh.
I tried to narrow down my choices. I looked for a comedy, but they were all older and stuff I'd seen, or else the raunchy stuff I don't find funny.
Clearly the studios are mostly targeting men. And China, which has a huge, insatiable appetite for the epic blockbusters. Every now and then a little indie film comes along, but you never hear about those so much as stumble upon them accidentally, assuming they're lucky enough to get distribution of some kind. But those middle movies? The rom-coms, for example? Nobody will make them any more because there is this prevailing notion that movies like that won't sell. And the idea isn't entirely unfounded; look at how poorly Blended did.
But then also look at how well 22 Jump Street did this weekend. And yes, women went to see it. (I want to see it; I thought the first one was great.) But that movie wasn't targeted at women; that women want to see Channing Tatum is just a happy side effect for the studio.
I don't know where I'm going with this except to say I'm tired of having to go re-watch Dodgeball or whatever to find something that suits my mood. I'm tired of my only current options being big science fiction and action movies. I'm tired of not being able to find what I want to watch because studios don't make those movies any more.
What did I end up watching? Well, I had the disc for The Young Victoria in from Netflix, so I popped that in. It was okay. Not great but kind of a nice, quiet break from all the pounding action films. And I do like Emily Blunt. (Who, coincidentally, stars in Edge of Tomorrow with Tom Cruise . . . another big sci-fi flick. Because roles for women have been shunted into "sexy sidekick/love interest" territory.)
Dramas now go to television to be born . . . Though we're in danger of losing comedies on the small screen now, and the dramas themselves are skewing ever darker, ever closer to the same sci-fi thrillers of the film trade. Hmm. While I think some of the best work—writing, acting, etc.—is being done for television now, I do worry it will all start to look and sound alike, too.
Honestly, it's like going into the produce section of a store, and all they have is a bunch of different kinds of apple. There are some differences in flavor and color, but they're all apples and the texture is pretty much the same. And I think, What if I don't want an apple? What if I want an orange or a banana or something like a mango? But good luck finding it.
Seriously, my eyes started to glaze over. Every option looked alike. Even the posters, all blues and blacks and silvers . . . Every now and then a brownish one that made me think of pollution . . .
Sigh.
I tried to narrow down my choices. I looked for a comedy, but they were all older and stuff I'd seen, or else the raunchy stuff I don't find funny.
Clearly the studios are mostly targeting men. And China, which has a huge, insatiable appetite for the epic blockbusters. Every now and then a little indie film comes along, but you never hear about those so much as stumble upon them accidentally, assuming they're lucky enough to get distribution of some kind. But those middle movies? The rom-coms, for example? Nobody will make them any more because there is this prevailing notion that movies like that won't sell. And the idea isn't entirely unfounded; look at how poorly Blended did.
But then also look at how well 22 Jump Street did this weekend. And yes, women went to see it. (I want to see it; I thought the first one was great.) But that movie wasn't targeted at women; that women want to see Channing Tatum is just a happy side effect for the studio.
I don't know where I'm going with this except to say I'm tired of having to go re-watch Dodgeball or whatever to find something that suits my mood. I'm tired of my only current options being big science fiction and action movies. I'm tired of not being able to find what I want to watch because studios don't make those movies any more.
What did I end up watching? Well, I had the disc for The Young Victoria in from Netflix, so I popped that in. It was okay. Not great but kind of a nice, quiet break from all the pounding action films. And I do like Emily Blunt. (Who, coincidentally, stars in Edge of Tomorrow with Tom Cruise . . . another big sci-fi flick. Because roles for women have been shunted into "sexy sidekick/love interest" territory.)
Dramas now go to television to be born . . . Though we're in danger of losing comedies on the small screen now, and the dramas themselves are skewing ever darker, ever closer to the same sci-fi thrillers of the film trade. Hmm. While I think some of the best work—writing, acting, etc.—is being done for television now, I do worry it will all start to look and sound alike, too.
Honestly, it's like going into the produce section of a store, and all they have is a bunch of different kinds of apple. There are some differences in flavor and color, but they're all apples and the texture is pretty much the same. And I think, What if I don't want an apple? What if I want an orange or a banana or something like a mango? But good luck finding it.
6.11.2014
Television: Fargo, "A Fox, a Rabbit, and a Cabbage"
Things aren't looking too good for Lester.
You'll recall that last week he happened upon Lorne Malvo at a Vegas bar. When Les approached Malvo's table, Malvo pretended not to know him. Here's the point at which a smart man would walk away. Actually, a smart man would never have approached the table to begin with. Why seek a connection with a known killer?
I understand from a character standpoint why. Lester, new and improved, feels the need to show himself off. He wants to prove his worth. And Malvo brushing him off only makes Lester feel worthless again. It sends him back to that time and place in his life when he was easily pushed aside. So Lester—stupid, foolish Lester—stands his ground.
Anyway, Lester follows Malvo and his "friends" into an elevator. Malvo, as it turns out, has been playing the long game, posing as a dentist in order to get close to another dentist's brother who is in witness protection for turning evidence on the mob. Lester forces Malvo's hand, however, and Malvo shoots everyone in the elevator. Except Lester, of course. (I don't understand how Lester got blood on his face but his white shirt remained pristine.)
Malvo seems to expect Lester to help with the bodies. But Lester, in yet another really stupid move, tries to knock Malvo out (fail) and then takes off for his hotel room and makes his wife pack and leave in the middle of the night. They go back to Bemidji, which is another really stupid move. Fly anywhere else, dude. But no, he goes right back to the town Malvo knows they live. And Malvo follows, though he's tripped up a bit by the fact Lester has moved to a new house.
Meanwhile, the two FBI agents get wind of Molly having called about Malvo and the Syndicate and all that. So they head to Bemidji to check out her evidence, and over Bill's objections they praise her fine police work.
And now Molly has a new wrinkle to iron out: Lester has been identified as the possible witness to three murders in Las Vegas. So she goes to question him. But Lester tells her everyone in the elevator was alive when he got off. (Won't the cameras refute that pretty easily?)
Malvo goes to Lester's old house and is confronted with new inhabitants. And just because he likes to fuck with people, he tells the man and two young boys about the murders and ghosts in the house. I have to say, I found this a bit over the top, even for Malvo. I know he does this kind of thing a lot, but in this one instance it seemed excessive in a way that was almost out of character.
Then Malvo hits up the diner and tries to get Lou (Molly's dad) to tell him where Lester lives. But Lou has enough sense not to give out that kind of information. And in one of those cinematic near misses, Malvo leaves through one door just as Molly comes in through another.
There is only one final option for Malvo: lie in wait at Lester's insurance shop in town.
And though Molly told them not to leave town or anything, Lester buys tickets to Aruba and he and his wife head down to the shop to fetch their passports and some extra cash.
Now it seemed to me that Lester knew exactly what he was doing. He sent his wife in for the passports and money. He had her wear his coat and told her to put the hood up. And yet he looked so shocked and horrified when he saw Malvo shoot her in the head. Maybe expecting it and seeing it are two different things, though.
Malvo leaves the shop. And Lester . . . Well, it's going to look pretty weird, a guy having two murdered wives a year apart. Even if Malvo were to leave him alone—and he probably won't—Les would be screwed.
Finale next week.
You'll recall that last week he happened upon Lorne Malvo at a Vegas bar. When Les approached Malvo's table, Malvo pretended not to know him. Here's the point at which a smart man would walk away. Actually, a smart man would never have approached the table to begin with. Why seek a connection with a known killer?
I understand from a character standpoint why. Lester, new and improved, feels the need to show himself off. He wants to prove his worth. And Malvo brushing him off only makes Lester feel worthless again. It sends him back to that time and place in his life when he was easily pushed aside. So Lester—stupid, foolish Lester—stands his ground.
Anyway, Lester follows Malvo and his "friends" into an elevator. Malvo, as it turns out, has been playing the long game, posing as a dentist in order to get close to another dentist's brother who is in witness protection for turning evidence on the mob. Lester forces Malvo's hand, however, and Malvo shoots everyone in the elevator. Except Lester, of course. (I don't understand how Lester got blood on his face but his white shirt remained pristine.)
Malvo seems to expect Lester to help with the bodies. But Lester, in yet another really stupid move, tries to knock Malvo out (fail) and then takes off for his hotel room and makes his wife pack and leave in the middle of the night. They go back to Bemidji, which is another really stupid move. Fly anywhere else, dude. But no, he goes right back to the town Malvo knows they live. And Malvo follows, though he's tripped up a bit by the fact Lester has moved to a new house.
Meanwhile, the two FBI agents get wind of Molly having called about Malvo and the Syndicate and all that. So they head to Bemidji to check out her evidence, and over Bill's objections they praise her fine police work.
And now Molly has a new wrinkle to iron out: Lester has been identified as the possible witness to three murders in Las Vegas. So she goes to question him. But Lester tells her everyone in the elevator was alive when he got off. (Won't the cameras refute that pretty easily?)
Malvo goes to Lester's old house and is confronted with new inhabitants. And just because he likes to fuck with people, he tells the man and two young boys about the murders and ghosts in the house. I have to say, I found this a bit over the top, even for Malvo. I know he does this kind of thing a lot, but in this one instance it seemed excessive in a way that was almost out of character.
Then Malvo hits up the diner and tries to get Lou (Molly's dad) to tell him where Lester lives. But Lou has enough sense not to give out that kind of information. And in one of those cinematic near misses, Malvo leaves through one door just as Molly comes in through another.
There is only one final option for Malvo: lie in wait at Lester's insurance shop in town.
And though Molly told them not to leave town or anything, Lester buys tickets to Aruba and he and his wife head down to the shop to fetch their passports and some extra cash.
Now it seemed to me that Lester knew exactly what he was doing. He sent his wife in for the passports and money. He had her wear his coat and told her to put the hood up. And yet he looked so shocked and horrified when he saw Malvo shoot her in the head. Maybe expecting it and seeing it are two different things, though.
Malvo leaves the shop. And Lester . . . Well, it's going to look pretty weird, a guy having two murdered wives a year apart. Even if Malvo were to leave him alone—and he probably won't—Les would be screwed.
Finale next week.
6.09.2014
Books: StrengthsFinder 2.0 by Tom Rath
There's actually not a whole lot to this book. There's some intro material and then you're prompted to use the code in the back of the book to log on to the Web site and take the assessment. Which I did. More on that later.
The general idea here is that we spend too much time trying to get better at things we just have no natural aptitude for. Instead, we should pinpoint our strengths and capitalize on them. This makes complete sense to me; it's why I always say, if I don't know something, I go find someone who does. If I can't do something, I find the person who can. We can none of us be everything. Much as we'd like to be. We are not islands. And it's been shown time and again that effective leaders are the ones who know how to delegate. They know their own strengths and weaknesses and they build teams whose strengths and weaknesses complement one another, adding up to an efficient whole.
Still, I was skeptical about the assessment. How accurate can these things really be? I've done Myers-Briggs and Keirsey and Big Five, and really it always seems that one can find ways to relate to all the outcomes. "Yes, this is me," one says. "At least, it's me today. It's me sometimes. It describes me that one time I did this particular thing." Like horoscopes, all these can be generalized enough to fit anybody.
Too, one has to take into account the test-taker's mood at the time. I tried to answer as generally as I could, but I've been struggling with my work lately and feeling pretty morose. Would I answer differently on a day I'm feeling confident? A day when I received an acceptance rather than a rejection?
The StrengthsFinder assessment does try to cut down on waffling by giving you only 20 seconds to answer each question. "Go with your gut" is the rule. But I still had difficulty. A lot of the items—you choose a range between two endpoints—were not mutually exclusive, and I felt they equally described me. On those I was forced to leave the indicator directly in the center.
There are 34 "Themes" for StrengthsFinder and the assessment lets you know your top 5. Mine were/are:
I have to say, when I read the descriptions, yes, it all sounds like me. But if I go to the book and begin reading about other Themes, I wonder if I wouldn't be able to say, "But this also sounds like me!" . . . I haven't. Yet. Again, sort of like reading other horoscope signs and thinking, "I dunno, I may be a Sagittarius, but I had kind of a Pisces day today." (I actually could do a whole post on why that might legitimately happen, but that's something else again.)
Anyway, with each of these Themes I've been given "Ideas for Action." In other words, ways to put my strengths to good use. A lot of them I already do, so this part of the book is less useful to me. I really want to know how to be successful, and I already know using my strengths will help with that, but . . . I need the opportunities to use my strengths in a way for others to notice them. And I don't seem to get many of those. What good is all this natural talent if no one is looking? Yeah, it sounds vain, but it's true. You can be great at your job but if no one notices . . .
Maybe the work should be its own reward. But that's not the way I'm built. I'm partially satisfied when I know I've done good work. But I'm only completely satisfied when that work gets recognized and rewarded. Blame the school system. Years of working for that gold star and teachers' acknowledgement have taken a toll.
And then sometimes the Ideas for Action are kind of . . . Well, for example, I'm encouraged to engage people in philosophical debate and discussion. I love that kind of thing. Too bad it's almost impossible for me to find other people willing to have long discussions like that. Most of them are only willing to talk about what they did over the weekend.
As ever, easier said (or written) than done. But it is a neat little resource. And I agree overall with the idea that people should play to their strengths. After all, how many people love doing stuff they know they suck at? Life is generally happier when you figure out what you do well and then do more of it.
The general idea here is that we spend too much time trying to get better at things we just have no natural aptitude for. Instead, we should pinpoint our strengths and capitalize on them. This makes complete sense to me; it's why I always say, if I don't know something, I go find someone who does. If I can't do something, I find the person who can. We can none of us be everything. Much as we'd like to be. We are not islands. And it's been shown time and again that effective leaders are the ones who know how to delegate. They know their own strengths and weaknesses and they build teams whose strengths and weaknesses complement one another, adding up to an efficient whole.
Still, I was skeptical about the assessment. How accurate can these things really be? I've done Myers-Briggs and Keirsey and Big Five, and really it always seems that one can find ways to relate to all the outcomes. "Yes, this is me," one says. "At least, it's me today. It's me sometimes. It describes me that one time I did this particular thing." Like horoscopes, all these can be generalized enough to fit anybody.
Too, one has to take into account the test-taker's mood at the time. I tried to answer as generally as I could, but I've been struggling with my work lately and feeling pretty morose. Would I answer differently on a day I'm feeling confident? A day when I received an acceptance rather than a rejection?
The StrengthsFinder assessment does try to cut down on waffling by giving you only 20 seconds to answer each question. "Go with your gut" is the rule. But I still had difficulty. A lot of the items—you choose a range between two endpoints—were not mutually exclusive, and I felt they equally described me. On those I was forced to leave the indicator directly in the center.
There are 34 "Themes" for StrengthsFinder and the assessment lets you know your top 5. Mine were/are:
- Strategic
- Futuristic
- Intellection
- Input
- Ideation
I have to say, when I read the descriptions, yes, it all sounds like me. But if I go to the book and begin reading about other Themes, I wonder if I wouldn't be able to say, "But this also sounds like me!" . . . I haven't. Yet. Again, sort of like reading other horoscope signs and thinking, "I dunno, I may be a Sagittarius, but I had kind of a Pisces day today." (I actually could do a whole post on why that might legitimately happen, but that's something else again.)
Anyway, with each of these Themes I've been given "Ideas for Action." In other words, ways to put my strengths to good use. A lot of them I already do, so this part of the book is less useful to me. I really want to know how to be successful, and I already know using my strengths will help with that, but . . . I need the opportunities to use my strengths in a way for others to notice them. And I don't seem to get many of those. What good is all this natural talent if no one is looking? Yeah, it sounds vain, but it's true. You can be great at your job but if no one notices . . .
Maybe the work should be its own reward. But that's not the way I'm built. I'm partially satisfied when I know I've done good work. But I'm only completely satisfied when that work gets recognized and rewarded. Blame the school system. Years of working for that gold star and teachers' acknowledgement have taken a toll.
And then sometimes the Ideas for Action are kind of . . . Well, for example, I'm encouraged to engage people in philosophical debate and discussion. I love that kind of thing. Too bad it's almost impossible for me to find other people willing to have long discussions like that. Most of them are only willing to talk about what they did over the weekend.
As ever, easier said (or written) than done. But it is a neat little resource. And I agree overall with the idea that people should play to their strengths. After all, how many people love doing stuff they know they suck at? Life is generally happier when you figure out what you do well and then do more of it.
6.08.2014
Movies: Maleficent
Starring: Angelina Jolie, Elle Fanning, Sam Riley, Sharlto Copley
Directed By: Robert Stromberg
Written By: Linda Woolverton
Disney, 2014
PG; 97 mins
5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
When my son, now eight, was about three years old, I showed him Disney's animated feature Sleeping Beauty and he immediately made a connection between me and Maleficent. I wasn't sure quite how to take that. Did I seem evil somehow? Unkind? But no, as it turned out, that wasn't it at all. My son saw me as powerful. Capable of magic. Even believed me able to turn into a dragon.
Still, isn't it a little awful that the depiction of a strong woman is equal to her being shown as a villainess? Or in more modern-day parlance and movies, a bitch?
Even though Sleeping Beauty was one of my favorites as a child (that one and Sword in the Stone), I didn't have much interest in Maleficent. I almost didn't bother to go; it was the thought of cinema popcorn that actually coaxed me into it. And I am oh so glad I did see it. Maleficent was immensely enjoyable.
Most interesting about the movie is the fact there is no single villain throughout. Maleficent starts out good; Stefan does too, more or less, though we first meet him as a thief and he is admittedly ambitious. It is betrayal on various fronts that engenders anger and evil throughout the movie. When people act out of anger, greed, fear, revenge—this is when things go wrong. And these emotions only propagate one another, breeding more of themselves in heart after heart.
And love, of course, is what drives these feelings away. Compassion, kindness, generosity, etc.
It's a very simple lesson told well here. My son, the one who so long ago likened me to Maleficent, came out of the cinema and said he liked that, "Sometimes she was the bad guy, and then it was the king, too."
I'll say the latest "true love's kiss" fad is already getting old. But whatever. This is small in the big scheme of the film.
I especially enjoyed Sam Riley as Diaval, but then again, I always liked Maleficent's raven in the cartoon as well. I have an affinity for blackbirds. Nice makeup choices, too, with the almost scar-like skin formations that show he is no natural human.
In any case, I wholly enjoyed Maleficent. Not only did it tell an old story in a new way, it told it well, and delivered its age-old messages in a palatable package.
Directed By: Robert Stromberg
Written By: Linda Woolverton
Disney, 2014
PG; 97 mins
5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
When my son, now eight, was about three years old, I showed him Disney's animated feature Sleeping Beauty and he immediately made a connection between me and Maleficent. I wasn't sure quite how to take that. Did I seem evil somehow? Unkind? But no, as it turned out, that wasn't it at all. My son saw me as powerful. Capable of magic. Even believed me able to turn into a dragon.
Still, isn't it a little awful that the depiction of a strong woman is equal to her being shown as a villainess? Or in more modern-day parlance and movies, a bitch?
Even though Sleeping Beauty was one of my favorites as a child (that one and Sword in the Stone), I didn't have much interest in Maleficent. I almost didn't bother to go; it was the thought of cinema popcorn that actually coaxed me into it. And I am oh so glad I did see it. Maleficent was immensely enjoyable.
Most interesting about the movie is the fact there is no single villain throughout. Maleficent starts out good; Stefan does too, more or less, though we first meet him as a thief and he is admittedly ambitious. It is betrayal on various fronts that engenders anger and evil throughout the movie. When people act out of anger, greed, fear, revenge—this is when things go wrong. And these emotions only propagate one another, breeding more of themselves in heart after heart.
And love, of course, is what drives these feelings away. Compassion, kindness, generosity, etc.
It's a very simple lesson told well here. My son, the one who so long ago likened me to Maleficent, came out of the cinema and said he liked that, "Sometimes she was the bad guy, and then it was the king, too."
I'll say the latest "true love's kiss" fad is already getting old. But whatever. This is small in the big scheme of the film.
I especially enjoyed Sam Riley as Diaval, but then again, I always liked Maleficent's raven in the cartoon as well. I have an affinity for blackbirds. Nice makeup choices, too, with the almost scar-like skin formations that show he is no natural human.
In any case, I wholly enjoyed Maleficent. Not only did it tell an old story in a new way, it told it well, and delivered its age-old messages in a palatable package.
Movies: The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
Ever since we read "How to Name a Dog" in school, I've enjoyed James Thurber. I'm sure many people have had to read "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" for school, too, only to immediately forget it when given something else to memorize and be quizzed over. So I'll give you the short version—really short, since the story itself is short to begin with: It's all in Walter's head.
That's not a spoiler, by the way. I didn't just ruin the movie or give away the ending. That's the premise, the foundation of the film, and the core of Thurber's original story. In the story Walter is driving his wife somewhere and has a bunch of daydreams as they go along. That wouldn't make much of a movie, so of course they took the character of Walter Mitty and made him daydreamy but put him to work in an office, namely in the photo department at LIFE Magazine.
I could get into the history of LIFE, but it isn't really relevant except to say to pick that magazine is an interesting choice that makes sense in the context of the story. LIFE (the monthly version, which appears to be what they're working on in this film) quit publishing in 2000 and was known for its beautiful photographic covers. And so here Walter (played by Ben Stiller) is responsible for something key to the magazine. He in fact has a good relationship with one of the best photographers, Sean O'Connell (Sean Penn).
Alas, as the film begins, LIFE is being bought out and will be printing its final issue as it moves toward an all-digital format. O'Connell has sent Walter a roll of film and has requested negative #25 be seriously considered for the last LIFE cover image. But negative #25 isn't there.
The first 30 minutes of the movie were a bit of a drag; it wasn't until Walter started having his real-life (real LIFE?) adventures that I got truly interested. The only thing in those first 30 minutes that kept me from turning it off entirely was the beauty of the movie. It is gorgeously shot. And as Walter goes to Greenland, Iceland, Afghanistan in search of O'Connell and the missing negative, the movie only gets better both in plot and visual interest.
Still, as to the plot I do have to say I called every "twist" well ahead of time. And I did have to wonder whether Walter had some kind of mental condition. Because it's one thing to daydream, but it's something else entirely to completely zone out like that. He should maybe be seen by a professional for that.
Kudos to Adam Scott, though, for playing a most convincing asshole. Wow. I really wanted something bad to happen to that guy.
In all, it was a cute movie once we made it past those first 30 minutes. Beautiful to look at, even if the plot wears thin in spots. And though it sometimes gets classed as a comedy, if you're looking for out and out laughs, this one will disappoint. Pick a different Ben Stiller movie for that.
That's not a spoiler, by the way. I didn't just ruin the movie or give away the ending. That's the premise, the foundation of the film, and the core of Thurber's original story. In the story Walter is driving his wife somewhere and has a bunch of daydreams as they go along. That wouldn't make much of a movie, so of course they took the character of Walter Mitty and made him daydreamy but put him to work in an office, namely in the photo department at LIFE Magazine.
I could get into the history of LIFE, but it isn't really relevant except to say to pick that magazine is an interesting choice that makes sense in the context of the story. LIFE (the monthly version, which appears to be what they're working on in this film) quit publishing in 2000 and was known for its beautiful photographic covers. And so here Walter (played by Ben Stiller) is responsible for something key to the magazine. He in fact has a good relationship with one of the best photographers, Sean O'Connell (Sean Penn).
Alas, as the film begins, LIFE is being bought out and will be printing its final issue as it moves toward an all-digital format. O'Connell has sent Walter a roll of film and has requested negative #25 be seriously considered for the last LIFE cover image. But negative #25 isn't there.
The first 30 minutes of the movie were a bit of a drag; it wasn't until Walter started having his real-life (real LIFE?) adventures that I got truly interested. The only thing in those first 30 minutes that kept me from turning it off entirely was the beauty of the movie. It is gorgeously shot. And as Walter goes to Greenland, Iceland, Afghanistan in search of O'Connell and the missing negative, the movie only gets better both in plot and visual interest.
Still, as to the plot I do have to say I called every "twist" well ahead of time. And I did have to wonder whether Walter had some kind of mental condition. Because it's one thing to daydream, but it's something else entirely to completely zone out like that. He should maybe be seen by a professional for that.
Kudos to Adam Scott, though, for playing a most convincing asshole. Wow. I really wanted something bad to happen to that guy.
In all, it was a cute movie once we made it past those first 30 minutes. Beautiful to look at, even if the plot wears thin in spots. And though it sometimes gets classed as a comedy, if you're looking for out and out laughs, this one will disappoint. Pick a different Ben Stiller movie for that.
6.06.2014
Movies: Zero Effect
Somehow I missed this one when it came out in 1998. Probably because I was graduating from college and traveling through Europe and moving into my own place. 1998 was awesome. For me, anyway.
Anyway, this is a kind of cute pseudo-Sherlock Holmes movie featuring Bill Pullman as Daryl Zero, a social misfit who is also a brilliant detective. Ben Stiller plays his Watsonian sidekick Steve Arlo. It's a setup that has a lot of potential, but the movie itself is longer than it really needs to be. Then again, back in 1998 there was still, you know, pacing in movies instead of having everything just sort of thrown at you really fast. Even so, Zero Effect plods a bit in places.
The plot involves a very wealthy Gregory Stark (Ryan O'Neal) having lost his keys. That alone would be funny—a rich guy hiring a detective to find his keys—but there's more to it; one of the keys on the ring is for a safety deposit box, and Stark is being blackmailed by someone who says s/he knows of something in Stark's past. Stark has been paying the blackmailer but wants to cap his losses once and for all by exposing him or her.
It goes from there. Zero, er, zeroes in pretty quickly on an EMT (Kim Dickens) and the obligatory romantic relationship ensues. It's similar to Irene Adler, only this being a modern take, they do actually sleep together.
The movie might've been funnier if there had been more between Stiller and Pullman. As it stands, Zero ends up documenting his cases on his own because his "Boswell" isn't at all interested. On the whole, they don't spend a lot of time together on screen, and Stiller's Arlo has very little to do (except complain) once Zero immerses himself in the case.
Overall, it's a cute movie. I feel like the idea is/was really good but the final product could have used some punching up.
Anyway, this is a kind of cute pseudo-Sherlock Holmes movie featuring Bill Pullman as Daryl Zero, a social misfit who is also a brilliant detective. Ben Stiller plays his Watsonian sidekick Steve Arlo. It's a setup that has a lot of potential, but the movie itself is longer than it really needs to be. Then again, back in 1998 there was still, you know, pacing in movies instead of having everything just sort of thrown at you really fast. Even so, Zero Effect plods a bit in places.
The plot involves a very wealthy Gregory Stark (Ryan O'Neal) having lost his keys. That alone would be funny—a rich guy hiring a detective to find his keys—but there's more to it; one of the keys on the ring is for a safety deposit box, and Stark is being blackmailed by someone who says s/he knows of something in Stark's past. Stark has been paying the blackmailer but wants to cap his losses once and for all by exposing him or her.
It goes from there. Zero, er, zeroes in pretty quickly on an EMT (Kim Dickens) and the obligatory romantic relationship ensues. It's similar to Irene Adler, only this being a modern take, they do actually sleep together.
The movie might've been funnier if there had been more between Stiller and Pullman. As it stands, Zero ends up documenting his cases on his own because his "Boswell" isn't at all interested. On the whole, they don't spend a lot of time together on screen, and Stiller's Arlo has very little to do (except complain) once Zero immerses himself in the case.
Overall, it's a cute movie. I feel like the idea is/was really good but the final product could have used some punching up.
Books: The Perils of Sherlock Holmes by Loren D. Estleman
I have a pretty extensive Sherlock Holmes library, and yet there's still so much out there I haven't read. There's almost too much Holmes to hope to keep up with it all. Point in fact, I had not read any of Estleman's work until this book was gifted to me, though his introductory essay touts his Holmes-Dracula and Holmes-Jekyll/Hyde novels. (The fact that his essay on "Channeling Holmes" is mostly used to promote his own work is a topic for a different discussion.) I do have, however, Fred Saberhagen's Holmes-Dracula File. If that counts for anything.
Given the nature of that opening essay, I suppose I should have been better prepared for almost every story in the anthology to be pairing Holmes with some other famous figure. This is apparently Estleman's preferred point of entry for writing Holmes. In this collection we get explorer Richard Francis Burton; Dickens' Tiny Tim all grown up; author Sax Rhomer of Fu Manchu fame; Wyatt Earp; and the Devil himself, kind of, maybe.
I get it. With all the Holmes literature (and film and television) out there, everyone needs a gimmick. An angle. This is Estleman's. And it's certainly fun to speculate on what it would be like for Holmes to meet other famous contemporaries, genuine or fictional.
Still, I found the stories themselves somewhat simplistic in nature. I remember commenting at one point that I felt I was reading at the Encyclopedia Brown level of Holmes stories. I couldn't see much about any of these "perils" (and there were hardly perils to begin with) to engage Holmes' mighty mind.
Twice Estleman takes a run at the supernatural: "The Adventure of the Three Ghosts" revisits Dickens' "Christmas Carol" and "The Devil and Sherlock Holmes" is just what it sounds. Actually, the unfinished "Serpent's Egg" also had a supernatural bent. I wasn't convinced of Estleman's take on Holmes' behavior in these cases, his automatic dismissal of potential supernatural causes; as I recall from Doyle's "Hound," Holmes did not not believe in the possibilities, he simply preferred to eliminate all earthly options first. While "Three Ghosts" has an expected conclusion, "The Devil" is left purposefully amorphous and is on the whole somewhat unsatisfying. "Serpent's Egg" showed great promise—of all the tales in the book, it feels the most like a Doyle story—but as it is unfinished, it is difficult to judge.
On the whole the anthology is average but not strong. The tone is Doylesque, but lacks some of Watson's deeper writing, glossing in places where Doyle's Watson would be likely to go into meaty description. There is, as I've mentioned, such a wide range of Holmes apocrypha out there, from fantastic to abysmal, and this one falls squarely in the middle.
Given the nature of that opening essay, I suppose I should have been better prepared for almost every story in the anthology to be pairing Holmes with some other famous figure. This is apparently Estleman's preferred point of entry for writing Holmes. In this collection we get explorer Richard Francis Burton; Dickens' Tiny Tim all grown up; author Sax Rhomer of Fu Manchu fame; Wyatt Earp; and the Devil himself, kind of, maybe.
I get it. With all the Holmes literature (and film and television) out there, everyone needs a gimmick. An angle. This is Estleman's. And it's certainly fun to speculate on what it would be like for Holmes to meet other famous contemporaries, genuine or fictional.
Still, I found the stories themselves somewhat simplistic in nature. I remember commenting at one point that I felt I was reading at the Encyclopedia Brown level of Holmes stories. I couldn't see much about any of these "perils" (and there were hardly perils to begin with) to engage Holmes' mighty mind.
Twice Estleman takes a run at the supernatural: "The Adventure of the Three Ghosts" revisits Dickens' "Christmas Carol" and "The Devil and Sherlock Holmes" is just what it sounds. Actually, the unfinished "Serpent's Egg" also had a supernatural bent. I wasn't convinced of Estleman's take on Holmes' behavior in these cases, his automatic dismissal of potential supernatural causes; as I recall from Doyle's "Hound," Holmes did not not believe in the possibilities, he simply preferred to eliminate all earthly options first. While "Three Ghosts" has an expected conclusion, "The Devil" is left purposefully amorphous and is on the whole somewhat unsatisfying. "Serpent's Egg" showed great promise—of all the tales in the book, it feels the most like a Doyle story—but as it is unfinished, it is difficult to judge.
On the whole the anthology is average but not strong. The tone is Doylesque, but lacks some of Watson's deeper writing, glossing in places where Doyle's Watson would be likely to go into meaty description. There is, as I've mentioned, such a wide range of Holmes apocrypha out there, from fantastic to abysmal, and this one falls squarely in the middle.
6.05.2014
Books: Grown-Ups Who Read YA
So this Slate article is being much circulated on my Facebook feed. Most of my reader and writer friends are up in arms over it, but . . . at the risk of having things hurled at me . . . I kind of agree.
Not wholly. Provisionally.
I think it's sometimes fun to escape into YA books. But as an adult with real life adult dealings, I also spend time reading literature that features people my age and/or older. This is because I cannot, at my age, live on a steady diet of teenage drama and angst. And I sort of distrust anyone who can.
That sounds . . . stuck-up or something, but I'm only being honest. I've found in dealing with a wide swath of readers that adults who read only YA aren't generally equipped to deal with the pressures of adulthood, or else they actively avoid and deny them. These are the people who want to be young forever—sure, who doesn't?—and will in fact pretend it isn't happening. They foster drama in their own lives and make other adults miserable because, hey, get over it.
I get the draw of YA. While for a teen the stories speak to current experience, for an adult they're kind of a break. YA books are sweet, simple; the problems of the characters seem small compared to the responsibilities of adulthood. In a YA book, chances are there will be a solution, a happy ending, some hope. That's because young adults have their whole lives ahead of them and are looking for stories about others who also have their whole lives ahead of them. They can do anything, go anywhere. They are standing on a brink, all options open until they make a choice.
For adults, though, reality sets in. Choices have been made and our lives reflect those choices. Life single, life married, life married with kids, life divorced, life widowed . . . Jobs, bills, aging parents, grown siblings, illness. Adult literature is piled with all these for a reason: it's meant to speak to adult experience just as YA books speak to young adult experience. Here there are not always pat answers or endings. Here there is not always hope or satisfaction.
Look, I don't read a whole lot of "literature." I prefer genre stuff (mysteries, some romances). Because like a lot of adults, I don't necessarily want to read about people whose problems are just as bad or worse than mine. But I also don't read a lot of YA either. Because while I can enjoy the lightness of it, can even wax nostalgic for my first love or whatever, I can't entirely relate. Like Ruth Graham, author of the Slate article, I end up rolling my eyes at the page.
So. I think there's room for adults to read and enjoy young adult literature. I think there are a lot of good YA authors putting out a lot of great writing. But I think adults should not only read YA. Their brains should stretch past high school romances; their thoughts should be bigger and deeper than that. And maybe you'd argue, "So long as they're reading, who cares what they read?" Well, the writers of adult literature care. Though you'll notice many have gone and started YA series (looking at you, Jasper Fforde). Instead of encouraging adults to read YA, maybe we should encourage young adults to graduate to bigger and [sometimes] better books.
Not wholly. Provisionally.
I think it's sometimes fun to escape into YA books. But as an adult with real life adult dealings, I also spend time reading literature that features people my age and/or older. This is because I cannot, at my age, live on a steady diet of teenage drama and angst. And I sort of distrust anyone who can.
That sounds . . . stuck-up or something, but I'm only being honest. I've found in dealing with a wide swath of readers that adults who read only YA aren't generally equipped to deal with the pressures of adulthood, or else they actively avoid and deny them. These are the people who want to be young forever—sure, who doesn't?—and will in fact pretend it isn't happening. They foster drama in their own lives and make other adults miserable because, hey, get over it.
I get the draw of YA. While for a teen the stories speak to current experience, for an adult they're kind of a break. YA books are sweet, simple; the problems of the characters seem small compared to the responsibilities of adulthood. In a YA book, chances are there will be a solution, a happy ending, some hope. That's because young adults have their whole lives ahead of them and are looking for stories about others who also have their whole lives ahead of them. They can do anything, go anywhere. They are standing on a brink, all options open until they make a choice.
For adults, though, reality sets in. Choices have been made and our lives reflect those choices. Life single, life married, life married with kids, life divorced, life widowed . . . Jobs, bills, aging parents, grown siblings, illness. Adult literature is piled with all these for a reason: it's meant to speak to adult experience just as YA books speak to young adult experience. Here there are not always pat answers or endings. Here there is not always hope or satisfaction.
Look, I don't read a whole lot of "literature." I prefer genre stuff (mysteries, some romances). Because like a lot of adults, I don't necessarily want to read about people whose problems are just as bad or worse than mine. But I also don't read a lot of YA either. Because while I can enjoy the lightness of it, can even wax nostalgic for my first love or whatever, I can't entirely relate. Like Ruth Graham, author of the Slate article, I end up rolling my eyes at the page.
So. I think there's room for adults to read and enjoy young adult literature. I think there are a lot of good YA authors putting out a lot of great writing. But I think adults should not only read YA. Their brains should stretch past high school romances; their thoughts should be bigger and deeper than that. And maybe you'd argue, "So long as they're reading, who cares what they read?" Well, the writers of adult literature care. Though you'll notice many have gone and started YA series (looking at you, Jasper Fforde). Instead of encouraging adults to read YA, maybe we should encourage young adults to graduate to bigger and [sometimes] better books.
Television: Fargo, "The Heap"
I said in a previous recap that I can't really cheer for Molly Solverson, and at the time I said I wasn't sure why. Just something about her character that I couldn't put my finger on. But after some thought, it occurs to me that I just can't respect her. And I feel like she went about the whole proving-her-point thing the wrong way. So maybe it's her lack of finesse that puts me off?
And there for a while, too, I think I felt badly enough for Lester that I didn't necessarily want him to get caught. Part of me just wanted Solverson to drop it already.
BUT.
Getting away with murder does very little for one's character, does it?
So here's what happens in "The Heap":
And then . . .
We jump forward a year and discover:
People might ask why the decision to skip a year, but it's pretty clear to me that the idea is to give the characters more to lose. A single cop with a sorta romance is one thing, a pregnant woman with a family—those are higher stakes. Lester had little after the loss of his wife, and he betrayed the rest of his family, but now he has a whole new life and a lot more that can be gambled and lost. Also, in the course of a year the characters feel "in the clear," making it that more of a punch to their guts when all this comes back to haunt them.
I'd been sort of idling with this show, half watching and still enjoying, but this episode brings things to a new crescendo. The final two of the season should be interesting indeed.
And there for a while, too, I think I felt badly enough for Lester that I didn't necessarily want him to get caught. Part of me just wanted Solverson to drop it already.
BUT.
Getting away with murder does very little for one's character, does it?
So here's what happens in "The Heap":
- Lester gets a new washing machine.
- Bill fusses at Molly and tells her that, whatever her feelings about the case are, she needs to let it go.
- Lorne Malvo visits Mr. Wrench in the hospital to let him know how and where things stand. Namely, that Mr. Wrench is now unemployed because Malvo has killed off the business.
- The FBI agents who completely missed Malvo's entering the building with an automatic weapon are put on file room duty.
- The Widow Hess and her henchmen sons confront Lester in the insurance office because her dead husband hadn't paid on his policy, which is why she's being denied the money. Lester says he'll make some calls but is force to get a bit violent when the boys threaten him. This impresses the girl he works with (Linda).
- Molly and Grimly continue their courtship.
And then . . .
We jump forward a year and discover:
- Molly and Grimly are married and expecting a baby. (Here, then, is the pregnancy so prominent in the film?)
- Molly is still fixated on the case and calls the FBI semi-regularly about it.
- Those FBI agents are still in the file room.
- Bill has adopted an African teen(?)
- And Lester is Insurance Salesman of the Year at an annual meeting in Vegas. He's also now married to Linda and has much better hair. But he's far less likable, too. That hubris he's acquired is what allows him to confront Malvo when he recognizes him at a bar.
People might ask why the decision to skip a year, but it's pretty clear to me that the idea is to give the characters more to lose. A single cop with a sorta romance is one thing, a pregnant woman with a family—those are higher stakes. Lester had little after the loss of his wife, and he betrayed the rest of his family, but now he has a whole new life and a lot more that can be gambled and lost. Also, in the course of a year the characters feel "in the clear," making it that more of a punch to their guts when all this comes back to haunt them.
I'd been sort of idling with this show, half watching and still enjoying, but this episode brings things to a new crescendo. The final two of the season should be interesting indeed.
6.04.2014
Television: 24: Live Another Day, "4:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m."
In which they finally unleash Jack and set him loose on London.
I can't say I've been paying much attention; things in this mini season have been too dull to absorb me. So to the best of my abilities given I wasn't paying full attention, here is what I understand to be happening:
President William Devane gives Jack free rein, and Jack demands Kate as a sidekick. Together they go to infiltrate the terrorist that has ties to Catelyn Stark (aka "Mummy"). Something to do with bank account records, but whatever. The short version is: Jack uses Kate as a peace offering, and while the terrorists string her up to interrogate/torture her, Jack (linked to Chloe) works on getting into the bank account. But it all goes to hell when MI5 turns up because Prime Minister Stephen Fry doesn't trust President William Devane to get the job done.
Still, in the most dramatic keystroke in television history, Jack gets the job done.
And Mummy sends Wannabe Sansa off to kill her sister-in-law and niece. Wannabe doesn't want to do it, tries to convince Mummy that there is no need, that her sister-in-law and niece don't know anything and are not a threat. Mummy doesn't believe it. And so Wannabe tries to warn her sister-in-law but . . . Accidentally stabs her anyway? (The sister-in-law was going to call the police, so maybe it wasn't so accidental.) The niece runs for it, Wannabe pursues her through London traffic, and then Wannabe is hit by a bus. Seriously.
Oh, and Navarro (Benjamin Bratt) appears to be a mole. Because it's not 24 if there isn't a mole.
Plus, the Chief of Staff is being pressured by the Russians to turn Jack over. Cuz he had forged the president's signature on a extradition order that would allow Jack to be transferred to Russian custody.
At least things are beginning to happen, but really, it took way too long. We're not even halfway through, and maybe things will be insanely action packed from here on out, but the sluggish start has made it harder for the show to capture and keep my attention. I no longer trust or expect it to deliver. Here's hoping it surprises me.
I can't say I've been paying much attention; things in this mini season have been too dull to absorb me. So to the best of my abilities given I wasn't paying full attention, here is what I understand to be happening:
President William Devane gives Jack free rein, and Jack demands Kate as a sidekick. Together they go to infiltrate the terrorist that has ties to Catelyn Stark (aka "Mummy"). Something to do with bank account records, but whatever. The short version is: Jack uses Kate as a peace offering, and while the terrorists string her up to interrogate/torture her, Jack (linked to Chloe) works on getting into the bank account. But it all goes to hell when MI5 turns up because Prime Minister Stephen Fry doesn't trust President William Devane to get the job done.
Still, in the most dramatic keystroke in television history, Jack gets the job done.
And Mummy sends Wannabe Sansa off to kill her sister-in-law and niece. Wannabe doesn't want to do it, tries to convince Mummy that there is no need, that her sister-in-law and niece don't know anything and are not a threat. Mummy doesn't believe it. And so Wannabe tries to warn her sister-in-law but . . . Accidentally stabs her anyway? (The sister-in-law was going to call the police, so maybe it wasn't so accidental.) The niece runs for it, Wannabe pursues her through London traffic, and then Wannabe is hit by a bus. Seriously.
Oh, and Navarro (Benjamin Bratt) appears to be a mole. Because it's not 24 if there isn't a mole.
Plus, the Chief of Staff is being pressured by the Russians to turn Jack over. Cuz he had forged the president's signature on a extradition order that would allow Jack to be transferred to Russian custody.
At least things are beginning to happen, but really, it took way too long. We're not even halfway through, and maybe things will be insanely action packed from here on out, but the sluggish start has made it harder for the show to capture and keep my attention. I no longer trust or expect it to deliver. Here's hoping it surprises me.
6.03.2014
Movies: Austenland
On the heels of reading some Jane Austen, I had to watch this movie, right?
Let me begin by saying, as an undergrad I had a roommate who was a fan of the Colin Firth version of Pride and Prejudice and known to watch it repeatedly whenever she was feeling down. This young woman strove to uphold the kinds of manners and propriety of the Austen era. She favored Empire-waisted gowns whenever gowns were called for (and she positively looked for reasons for which they might be called). She baked Regency type dishes.
In short, she was a romantic. And there is nothing wrong with that, within reason. And this roommate of mine was not, say, incapable of functioning in modern society. So, you know, to each her own and everyone needs a hobby. And I can't really be one to talk since I was watching things like Highlander and Babylon 5 at the time.
What I mean to show in all this is that I know people like Jane Hayes (Keri Russell) exist. I've lived with one of them. And at first I wasn't sure if the movie meant to make fun of such people or encourage them. But neither option was optimal to my way of thinking. One is plain mean and the other is fueling a fire that is best kept moderate.
Truly, I had no real expectations of Austenland anyway. The reviews had been somewhat lackluster (30% from critics on Rotten Tomatoes, though 56% of viewers liked it). I think I may have read the book some years ago, or a book with a very similar conceit, but I don't remember enough about it to even know . . . Which probably says something about the book . . .
So I was surprised at how much I actually enjoyed the movie.
In short, the film is about the aforementioned Jane, long a lover of Austen's works, who blows her savings on a trip to the titular Austenland, an immersive Austen-themed experience complete with gallantry and romance. Each guest (and they're all female; wonder what would happen if one were male?) is assigned an actor as a love interest for the duration of their stay. Hilarity ensues.
Jennifer Coolidge is the best thing about the movie, what with her ad libbed lines that had me roaring. The theatrical scene, too—the looks on some of the footmen's faces in the audience were priceless. And I don't mind looking at JJ Feild, either. (Though maybe not enough to watch TURN. Can we import him to Sleepy Hollow instead?)
It was easy enough to call the "twist" at the end well ahead of the reveal, but in all it was a cute movie. And it didn't make fun of Austen fans, and it didn't unnecessarily encourage delusion; instead it showed pretty cleanly there is a time and place for everything.
So go! Hang out at a Renaissance Faire, daydream about Mr. Darcy in whichever form you prefer him. But don't wait for something or someone who doesn't really exist. Therein is the lesson, neatly wrapped in Regency paper and topped with a romantic comedy bow.
Let me begin by saying, as an undergrad I had a roommate who was a fan of the Colin Firth version of Pride and Prejudice and known to watch it repeatedly whenever she was feeling down. This young woman strove to uphold the kinds of manners and propriety of the Austen era. She favored Empire-waisted gowns whenever gowns were called for (and she positively looked for reasons for which they might be called). She baked Regency type dishes.
In short, she was a romantic. And there is nothing wrong with that, within reason. And this roommate of mine was not, say, incapable of functioning in modern society. So, you know, to each her own and everyone needs a hobby. And I can't really be one to talk since I was watching things like Highlander and Babylon 5 at the time.
What I mean to show in all this is that I know people like Jane Hayes (Keri Russell) exist. I've lived with one of them. And at first I wasn't sure if the movie meant to make fun of such people or encourage them. But neither option was optimal to my way of thinking. One is plain mean and the other is fueling a fire that is best kept moderate.
Truly, I had no real expectations of Austenland anyway. The reviews had been somewhat lackluster (30% from critics on Rotten Tomatoes, though 56% of viewers liked it). I think I may have read the book some years ago, or a book with a very similar conceit, but I don't remember enough about it to even know . . . Which probably says something about the book . . .
So I was surprised at how much I actually enjoyed the movie.
In short, the film is about the aforementioned Jane, long a lover of Austen's works, who blows her savings on a trip to the titular Austenland, an immersive Austen-themed experience complete with gallantry and romance. Each guest (and they're all female; wonder what would happen if one were male?) is assigned an actor as a love interest for the duration of their stay. Hilarity ensues.
Jennifer Coolidge is the best thing about the movie, what with her ad libbed lines that had me roaring. The theatrical scene, too—the looks on some of the footmen's faces in the audience were priceless. And I don't mind looking at JJ Feild, either. (Though maybe not enough to watch TURN. Can we import him to Sleepy Hollow instead?)
It was easy enough to call the "twist" at the end well ahead of the reveal, but in all it was a cute movie. And it didn't make fun of Austen fans, and it didn't unnecessarily encourage delusion; instead it showed pretty cleanly there is a time and place for everything.
So go! Hang out at a Renaissance Faire, daydream about Mr. Darcy in whichever form you prefer him. But don't wait for something or someone who doesn't really exist. Therein is the lesson, neatly wrapped in Regency paper and topped with a romantic comedy bow.
Books: Mansfield Park by Jane Austen (Chapters 41–48)
Whoa, what?
And things were going so well . . .
Mr Crawford goes to Portsmouth to see Fanny. He notices that her health is suffering for lack of good food and fresh air, and he entreats her to let him take her home to Mansfield. But though Fanny is slowly thawing, she continues to have reservations about Crawford (probably at least in part biased by the knowledge that her beloved cousin Edmund loves Miss Crawford). And so despite wanting very much to return to Mansfield, Fanny declines Crawford's invitation.
Crawford leaves and Miss Crawford writes to Fanny. With every letter from Miss Crawford or Edmund, Fanny lives in exquisite pain of hearing her fears realized: that they are engaged. And yet there is never any such news. Painful enough, one supposes, to have to read Edmund's rhapsodic ramblings of Miss Crawford's sterling nature tarnished only by the influences of bad society. Ugh.
At this point it seems things must have a predetermined end. Fanny will eventually accept Crawford and Edmund and Miss Crawford will "hook up." Right? Because though Fanny is an excellent observer, surely many of her conclusions are colored by her own feelings, particularly those she has for Edmund?
But no! The plot twists! For one, Tom (eldest son of Sir Thomas) suffers an injury that may be life-threatening! Could it be that Edmund will inherit Mansfield? Will that remove the last of Miss Crawford's obstacles? (And if it did . . . Isn't that almost worse for Edmund? To be accepted only on the strength of a dead brother's legacy? Not wanted enough for himself—he is not enough for Miss Crawford, she must have the money and lifestyle too.) A letter from Miss Crawford to Fanny suggests that Miss Crawford's mind runs exactly on such lines, reaffirming Fanny's suspicions of Miss Crawford's singularly mercenary nature.
And then! That old flirtation between Mr Crawford and the now Mrs Rushworth springs forth anew! Indeed, they run away together! Such shame on the family . . . And now there is no question of Fanny marrying Crawford or Edmund marrying Miss Crawford. The connection must be severed. Fanny is upheld again.
Miss Crawford blames Fanny in part for the drama. If she'd simply agreed to marry Mr Crawford, none of this would have happened. But one must wonder how much worse it might have been if Fanny had married him, how much more miserable she might have been. Because who is to say that Mrs Rushworth and Mr Crawford wouldn't still have had an affair? And they'd have been thrown together so much at family gatherings that it would have been that much easier. Would Mr Crawford's love for Fanny—if it's to be believed he really did love her—been stronger than his vanity? Would Mrs Rushworth have succeeded in wooing him anyway? If only to soothe her own vanity and pride at having her inferior cousin chosen by the man she loved?
Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
But the game of What If? has no place in the real world of fiction.
Finally, Julia elopes with Tom's friend Yates. Though in the bigger scheme of things, this is hardly irreconcilable.
In the aftermath of family ruin, Fanny is fetched from Portsmouth back to Mansfield, and she brings along Susan as well. Paradoxically, Fanny's greatest happiness is nested in the deterioration of the Bertrams. She is treasured now in contrast to her cousins who have failed the family. She is safe now from any fear that Edmund might marry Miss Crawford. Nor is she frowned upon for having refused Mr Crawford; instead it appears as great good sense on her part. And so while she is sensible of the sad situation, she is quite satisfied with the outcomes. The pride of the Bertrams heralded their fall. Fanny's enduring humility lifts her up.
Tom survives, and not only that but becomes a much better person for having come through such personal peril. Julia and her husband are welcomed back into the fold of the family. Maria is sent abroad to live in disgrace under the care of Mrs Norris (of whom Mansfield is well rid). Edmund nurses his broken heart and hopes and eventually comes to see the kind of woman he's searched for all along has been right in front of him. He and Fanny are happily married and Susan takes Fanny's place as Lady Bertram's companion.
All's well and all that jazz.
And good things come to those who wait. Patience pays off. Good is rewarded in the end. &c. &c.
And things were going so well . . .
Mr Crawford goes to Portsmouth to see Fanny. He notices that her health is suffering for lack of good food and fresh air, and he entreats her to let him take her home to Mansfield. But though Fanny is slowly thawing, she continues to have reservations about Crawford (probably at least in part biased by the knowledge that her beloved cousin Edmund loves Miss Crawford). And so despite wanting very much to return to Mansfield, Fanny declines Crawford's invitation.
Crawford leaves and Miss Crawford writes to Fanny. With every letter from Miss Crawford or Edmund, Fanny lives in exquisite pain of hearing her fears realized: that they are engaged. And yet there is never any such news. Painful enough, one supposes, to have to read Edmund's rhapsodic ramblings of Miss Crawford's sterling nature tarnished only by the influences of bad society. Ugh.
At this point it seems things must have a predetermined end. Fanny will eventually accept Crawford and Edmund and Miss Crawford will "hook up." Right? Because though Fanny is an excellent observer, surely many of her conclusions are colored by her own feelings, particularly those she has for Edmund?
But no! The plot twists! For one, Tom (eldest son of Sir Thomas) suffers an injury that may be life-threatening! Could it be that Edmund will inherit Mansfield? Will that remove the last of Miss Crawford's obstacles? (And if it did . . . Isn't that almost worse for Edmund? To be accepted only on the strength of a dead brother's legacy? Not wanted enough for himself—he is not enough for Miss Crawford, she must have the money and lifestyle too.) A letter from Miss Crawford to Fanny suggests that Miss Crawford's mind runs exactly on such lines, reaffirming Fanny's suspicions of Miss Crawford's singularly mercenary nature.
And then! That old flirtation between Mr Crawford and the now Mrs Rushworth springs forth anew! Indeed, they run away together! Such shame on the family . . . And now there is no question of Fanny marrying Crawford or Edmund marrying Miss Crawford. The connection must be severed. Fanny is upheld again.
Miss Crawford blames Fanny in part for the drama. If she'd simply agreed to marry Mr Crawford, none of this would have happened. But one must wonder how much worse it might have been if Fanny had married him, how much more miserable she might have been. Because who is to say that Mrs Rushworth and Mr Crawford wouldn't still have had an affair? And they'd have been thrown together so much at family gatherings that it would have been that much easier. Would Mr Crawford's love for Fanny—if it's to be believed he really did love her—been stronger than his vanity? Would Mrs Rushworth have succeeded in wooing him anyway? If only to soothe her own vanity and pride at having her inferior cousin chosen by the man she loved?
Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
But the game of What If? has no place in the real world of fiction.
Finally, Julia elopes with Tom's friend Yates. Though in the bigger scheme of things, this is hardly irreconcilable.
In the aftermath of family ruin, Fanny is fetched from Portsmouth back to Mansfield, and she brings along Susan as well. Paradoxically, Fanny's greatest happiness is nested in the deterioration of the Bertrams. She is treasured now in contrast to her cousins who have failed the family. She is safe now from any fear that Edmund might marry Miss Crawford. Nor is she frowned upon for having refused Mr Crawford; instead it appears as great good sense on her part. And so while she is sensible of the sad situation, she is quite satisfied with the outcomes. The pride of the Bertrams heralded their fall. Fanny's enduring humility lifts her up.
Tom survives, and not only that but becomes a much better person for having come through such personal peril. Julia and her husband are welcomed back into the fold of the family. Maria is sent abroad to live in disgrace under the care of Mrs Norris (of whom Mansfield is well rid). Edmund nurses his broken heart and hopes and eventually comes to see the kind of woman he's searched for all along has been right in front of him. He and Fanny are happily married and Susan takes Fanny's place as Lady Bertram's companion.
All's well and all that jazz.
And good things come to those who wait. Patience pays off. Good is rewarded in the end. &c. &c.
6.01.2014
Books: Mansfield Park by Jane Austen (Chapters 33–40)
Mr Crawford will not take "no" for an answer, no matter how many different ways Fanny tries to say it. And she gets no help from Edmund who, while acknowledging he wouldn't want her to marry against her wishes, says he does wish she wished to marry Mr Crawford. Could there be anything worse than having the person you love say they wish you'd marry someone else? Well, there's the fact that Edmund is in love with someone else too. That's pretty heartbreaking for Fanny as well.
Fanny is rescued two-fold from all the pressures of Mansfield—that is, the hopes she'll come to her senses and accept Mr Crawford, and the hateful pressure of having to hear Edmund rhapsodize over Miss Crawford—by (a) Mr Crawford and his sister going to London, and (b) a visit from William. Together, Fanny and William plan to go to Portsmouth where William's sloop is docked and where the Price family lives. Fanny hasn't been "home" in some eight years or so.
As Bartok says: This can only end in tears.
For one thing, Fanny has been brought up so differently. And for another, she has been absent so long that there really is no place for her in the family. It might have been all right if William had been able to stay and ease her into the household, but upon their arrival in Portsmouth, William is informed his ship is almost ready to leave. He must go.
Fanny struggles to fit into the Price family but she is used to quiet and the place is noisy. She is used to order and the place is highly disorganized. She is used to propriety and in the Price home there is none; her father drinks and swears, people yell through the house, the children misbehave, and the servants can hardly be bothered to do their work.
In one person, however, Fanny finds some comfort: Her sister Susan. At first Susan appears too strident and temperamental, but Fanny comes to understand it is only because Susan struggles against the very things that upset Fanny and shows her frustration in ways Fanny never would. Susan does not scruple to speak out and tell her brothers, her little sister, the servants what they should and shouldn't do. To no avail. And so Fanny shows Susan how to sit quietly up in their shared room, away from the bustle, thus removing themselves from the very stimulants that strike them the wrong way.
Meantime, Fanny has word that Edmund has gone to London himself. Now Fanny lives in dread of the news that Edmund and Miss Crawford will officially be engaged . . .
Fanny is rescued two-fold from all the pressures of Mansfield—that is, the hopes she'll come to her senses and accept Mr Crawford, and the hateful pressure of having to hear Edmund rhapsodize over Miss Crawford—by (a) Mr Crawford and his sister going to London, and (b) a visit from William. Together, Fanny and William plan to go to Portsmouth where William's sloop is docked and where the Price family lives. Fanny hasn't been "home" in some eight years or so.
As Bartok says: This can only end in tears.
For one thing, Fanny has been brought up so differently. And for another, she has been absent so long that there really is no place for her in the family. It might have been all right if William had been able to stay and ease her into the household, but upon their arrival in Portsmouth, William is informed his ship is almost ready to leave. He must go.
Fanny struggles to fit into the Price family but she is used to quiet and the place is noisy. She is used to order and the place is highly disorganized. She is used to propriety and in the Price home there is none; her father drinks and swears, people yell through the house, the children misbehave, and the servants can hardly be bothered to do their work.
In one person, however, Fanny finds some comfort: Her sister Susan. At first Susan appears too strident and temperamental, but Fanny comes to understand it is only because Susan struggles against the very things that upset Fanny and shows her frustration in ways Fanny never would. Susan does not scruple to speak out and tell her brothers, her little sister, the servants what they should and shouldn't do. To no avail. And so Fanny shows Susan how to sit quietly up in their shared room, away from the bustle, thus removing themselves from the very stimulants that strike them the wrong way.
Meantime, Fanny has word that Edmund has gone to London himself. Now Fanny lives in dread of the news that Edmund and Miss Crawford will officially be engaged . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)