This show about a bunch of would-be FBI agents in training and how one of them is framed for a major act of terrorism is roughly hewn rather than neatly constructed. The characters—and there are so many I almost can't be bothered to keep track—are broad and blunt, not deep in any way. The writers seem to have confused backstory with depth, as each character has some complicated history that becomes the focus of the pilot when the trainees are told to dig up dirt on and then interrogate one another. Priyanka Chopra as Alex Parrish (the one eventually accused of terrorism) walks around with the same glazed look on her face as Katherine Heigl did in Grey's Anatomy. That was all I could think every time the camera zeroed in on her face. Which was often.
And this is like Grey's Anatomy, in a way. A collection of students, more or less, involved in life-or-death situations and lots of soapy drama. So if you like that kind of thing, with a little conspiracy theory added, then Quantico may be for you. Alas, because I'm the type to put character above plot, it may not be for me; I simply can't get over how unrefined the character development is here. Count Quantico as the kid dressed in black at the back of the school cafeteria who thinks everyone is wondering about him, thinking he's deep, when really no one has even noticed nor do they care.
10.01.2015
Television: The Grinder, "Pilot"
Here we have Rob Lowe playing, more or less, Chris Traeger from Parks and Rec—same enthusiasm and optimism and go-getter-ism (if that's a thing). And we have Fred Savage playing straight man while everyone else buys into Lowe's effusive personality.
The setup is that Lowe plays Dean Sanderson, a television actor whose legal drama series The Grinder has come to an end. Savage plays Dean's brother Stewart, an actual lawyer. William Devane plays their dad, also a lawyer.
You can see where this is going.
Dean comes home to enjoy his series finale with his family and stays on to become a for real lawyer. Because Stewart knows all the stuff, but Dean has the panache. They'll make a great team, right?
Overall, I found this one cute but not amazing. Pretty standard fare, really. It's fun to watch Lowe do the slick stuff he does so well, and it's fun to watch Savage bungle a bit, but it's also difficult to imagine this won't get tired fast. If I could find better comedy somewhere, this one wouldn't be a contender, but as things stand, I'll probably give it another episode or two.
The setup is that Lowe plays Dean Sanderson, a television actor whose legal drama series The Grinder has come to an end. Savage plays Dean's brother Stewart, an actual lawyer. William Devane plays their dad, also a lawyer.
You can see where this is going.
Dean comes home to enjoy his series finale with his family and stays on to become a for real lawyer. Because Stewart knows all the stuff, but Dean has the panache. They'll make a great team, right?
Overall, I found this one cute but not amazing. Pretty standard fare, really. It's fun to watch Lowe do the slick stuff he does so well, and it's fun to watch Savage bungle a bit, but it's also difficult to imagine this won't get tired fast. If I could find better comedy somewhere, this one wouldn't be a contender, but as things stand, I'll probably give it another episode or two.
9.30.2015
Television: The Muppets, "Hostile Makeover"
Piggy falls prey to the charms of Josh Groban, making her much easier to live with but her show a lot worse, too. And Fozzie is apparently a kleptomaniac.
While better than the pilot—I mean, at least this time I laughed, especially thanks to Laurence Fishburne—I'm still not completely sold on this show. I'll probably give it one more episode to see if it continues to get better. If not, I'll strike it from my viewing roster. I have too many other things to do to waste time on a so-so show.
While better than the pilot—I mean, at least this time I laughed, especially thanks to Laurence Fishburne—I'm still not completely sold on this show. I'll probably give it one more episode to see if it continues to get better. If not, I'll strike it from my viewing roster. I have too many other things to do to waste time on a so-so show.
Television: Scream Queens, "Pilot" & "Hell Week"
So if you're looking for something kind of ridiculous, this fits the bill. While I couldn't stomach some of the bloodier parts, I did find Scream Queens entertaining. I know everyone says "Mean Girls" and, yeah, this is that except here at least some of the mean girls get what's coming to them. Of course, some innocents become collateral damage along the way.
I won't go into details about the plot, but to summarize: A sorority house ruled by meanie Chanel (Emma Roberts doing pretty much the exact same thing she did in AHS: Coven) is targeted by a serial killer. Why? Well, it might have something to do with how one of the pledges was left to die in a bathtub during a party 20 years ago. The pledge had just given birth, and now that baby is old enough to take revenge.
This is the running theory, though there are certainly a number of suspects on offer in the show, which is part of the fun. Jamie Lee Curtis does a fine job as the dean who hates sororities, and there are at least two characters obsessed with and/or turned on by death.
I've already dropped Minority Report, but I'll continue to watch Scream Queens. It's over the top, and I could use that in my otherwise rather heavy viewing diet.
I won't go into details about the plot, but to summarize: A sorority house ruled by meanie Chanel (Emma Roberts doing pretty much the exact same thing she did in AHS: Coven) is targeted by a serial killer. Why? Well, it might have something to do with how one of the pledges was left to die in a bathtub during a party 20 years ago. The pledge had just given birth, and now that baby is old enough to take revenge.
This is the running theory, though there are certainly a number of suspects on offer in the show, which is part of the fun. Jamie Lee Curtis does a fine job as the dean who hates sororities, and there are at least two characters obsessed with and/or turned on by death.
I've already dropped Minority Report, but I'll continue to watch Scream Queens. It's over the top, and I could use that in my otherwise rather heavy viewing diet.
9.29.2015
Podcasts: Limetown
So there have been two episodes of this particular podcast, with the intention of there ultimately being seven IIRC.
It's an interesting, fictional tale of a reporter digging into the mysterious Limetown, which was a facility in which a collective of genius scientists lived and were working. What they were working on is unknown, and what happened to the people is equally unclear. There was an "incident" and then everyone disappeared (except the lead scientist, who seemingly was burned at the stake by his colleagues).
If you like, say, The X-Files, you'd probably enjoy this.
The only thing that irritates me about this podcast is whoever plays the main character (the female reporter). I really dislike her voice acting. I find her soporific and unbelievable as a journalist. She's slow when she should be fast and vice versa. That is to say, moments when she should be quick and excited, her words are drawn out, and moments when one would hesitate or be confused, she's too sharp. I dunno. I'm probably overthinking it. But it really does bother me. Enough that, if this were an indefinite program, I'd likely stop listening. But if there's only going to be seven, well, I can stick it out despite her.
It's an interesting, fictional tale of a reporter digging into the mysterious Limetown, which was a facility in which a collective of genius scientists lived and were working. What they were working on is unknown, and what happened to the people is equally unclear. There was an "incident" and then everyone disappeared (except the lead scientist, who seemingly was burned at the stake by his colleagues).
If you like, say, The X-Files, you'd probably enjoy this.
The only thing that irritates me about this podcast is whoever plays the main character (the female reporter). I really dislike her voice acting. I find her soporific and unbelievable as a journalist. She's slow when she should be fast and vice versa. That is to say, moments when she should be quick and excited, her words are drawn out, and moments when one would hesitate or be confused, she's too sharp. I dunno. I'm probably overthinking it. But it really does bother me. Enough that, if this were an indefinite program, I'd likely stop listening. But if there's only going to be seven, well, I can stick it out despite her.
9.28.2015
Television: Doctor Who, "The Witch's Familiar"
Uh . . .
So Clara and Missy are doing a thing, and the Doctor is doing this other thing. And there are some rotting Daleks, and then Clara goes into a Dalek and Missy tries to get the Doctor to kill Clara (because Clara is "dressed" as a Dalek).
I dunno. Whatever.
Seriously, though, Davros tricks the Doctor into using some of his regeneration energy to heal him, thus also strengthening the Daleks (except this causes those rotting Daleks to become the Dalek equivalent of living dead . . . If the living dead were sludge). So now maybe Daleks are hybrids? With some Time Lord power or something? ::shrug::
I suppose the important thing is the Daleks now know Gallifrey still exists. Oops.
Oh, and the Doctor uses sunglasses now instead of a sonic screwdriver. He's hip like that. (Or Moffat liked the idea so much in Sherlock he had to transplant it.)
Is having a female Time Lord—Time Lady—his response to criticism that the new Doctor should have been a woman (or a POC, but in any case not another white man)? Of course, then he makes this woman evil, so . . .
Although, honestly, Missy is one of the more interesting characters these days. It's fun to be bad, amiright? Missy is this show's Moriarty. Pretty much the exact same character. Moffat really only has one note.
But at least the Doctor is revealed not to be a child killer. That's Moffat's other favorite trick: the fake out. He needs a new toolbox, some fresh blood in his work. It's all going to be more of the same otherwise.
So Clara and Missy are doing a thing, and the Doctor is doing this other thing. And there are some rotting Daleks, and then Clara goes into a Dalek and Missy tries to get the Doctor to kill Clara (because Clara is "dressed" as a Dalek).
I dunno. Whatever.
Seriously, though, Davros tricks the Doctor into using some of his regeneration energy to heal him, thus also strengthening the Daleks (except this causes those rotting Daleks to become the Dalek equivalent of living dead . . . If the living dead were sludge). So now maybe Daleks are hybrids? With some Time Lord power or something? ::shrug::
I suppose the important thing is the Daleks now know Gallifrey still exists. Oops.
Oh, and the Doctor uses sunglasses now instead of a sonic screwdriver. He's hip like that. (Or Moffat liked the idea so much in Sherlock he had to transplant it.)
Is having a female Time Lord—Time Lady—his response to criticism that the new Doctor should have been a woman (or a POC, but in any case not another white man)? Of course, then he makes this woman evil, so . . .
Although, honestly, Missy is one of the more interesting characters these days. It's fun to be bad, amiright? Missy is this show's Moriarty. Pretty much the exact same character. Moffat really only has one note.
But at least the Doctor is revealed not to be a child killer. That's Moffat's other favorite trick: the fake out. He needs a new toolbox, some fresh blood in his work. It's all going to be more of the same otherwise.
Books: You're Never Weird on the Internet (Almost) by Felicia Day
Picked this one up prior to traveling to London and it was a nice, quick and easy read for the plane.
I am not, for the record, any particular fan of Ms. Day, though I've seen many of the shows she's been in (I'm a fan of Joss Whedon, so . . .) Why, then, did I decide to read her memoir? Because it sounded interesting. And as I read, I realized we have a lot of personality traits in common.
Anyway. It's a great little book that doesn't require Felicia Day fandom to enjoy or relate, though whether you find her life and experiences interesting may be predicated on how much you like . . . geekdom? Day doesn't say anything specific about time on the Buffy set or other such things, instead focusing on her own work with The Guild and Geek and Sundry. We do get a lot about commercials and auditions, though, and acting classes, etc. And a bit about conventions, of course. (I was the guest at conventions when I was at UT, back when fan fiction had to be published in zines rather than just slapped onto the Internet. I was a fanfic author of some renown at the time—well, and my Sherlock fic from a few years back is still considered the gold standard—and those conventions were so fun. Maybe I'll get to do it again some day. Thanks, Felicia, for giving me permission to own that I got my start writing fanfic before moving on to more "serious" work.)
Other topics covered include mental illness and Gamergate. On the whole, it's a somewhat spotty story, but a good one. Worth the little bit of time it takes to read.
I am not, for the record, any particular fan of Ms. Day, though I've seen many of the shows she's been in (I'm a fan of Joss Whedon, so . . .) Why, then, did I decide to read her memoir? Because it sounded interesting. And as I read, I realized we have a lot of personality traits in common.
- Weird upbringing in the American South? Check. (Though mine was distinctly different from hers, I was equally isolated and had difficulty making friends.)
- Crush on Commander Riker? Check. Named my favorite teddy bear William. Though later MacGyver became my man.
- Creating elaborate worlds that combined favorite book and TV/film characters? Check. Mine had Han Solo and Indiana Jones as identical cousins, Patty Duke style, and for some reason they all spent a lot of time on the Enterprise. Also time traveling into the antebellum South, cuz I love me some houses with big columns.
- Astrology? Check. I still read charts for friends.
- UT Austin? Check. In fact, it sounds as if we attended at about the same time.
- Obsessive/addictive nature? Check. For me it was TV shows and movies rather than video games, but yeah. You should see my scrapbooks.
- Having a friendly support group hold you accountable and get you to start writing? Check.
- A people-pleasing, perfectionist nature? Check. I didn't necessarily need kids my age to like me, but boy howdy did I want my teachers to love me. All my self-worth was caught up in that, and I still struggle with it.
- Wanting to erase yourself from the world (digital or otherwise)? Check. I went through that a few years back, deleting accounts left and right, and I'm starting to feel that way again now.
Anyway. It's a great little book that doesn't require Felicia Day fandom to enjoy or relate, though whether you find her life and experiences interesting may be predicated on how much you like . . . geekdom? Day doesn't say anything specific about time on the Buffy set or other such things, instead focusing on her own work with The Guild and Geek and Sundry. We do get a lot about commercials and auditions, though, and acting classes, etc. And a bit about conventions, of course. (I was the guest at conventions when I was at UT, back when fan fiction had to be published in zines rather than just slapped onto the Internet. I was a fanfic author of some renown at the time—well, and my Sherlock fic from a few years back is still considered the gold standard—and those conventions were so fun. Maybe I'll get to do it again some day. Thanks, Felicia, for giving me permission to own that I got my start writing fanfic before moving on to more "serious" work.)
Other topics covered include mental illness and Gamergate. On the whole, it's a somewhat spotty story, but a good one. Worth the little bit of time it takes to read.
Theatre: Hamlet at the Barbican (London)
I know it's something of a cliché to say Hamlet is your favorite Shakespeare play, but for me it is absolutely true. I'm original in a lot of ways, but in this one thing I am like so many others. I have performed, taught, and seen Hamlet so many times I can't even count, and I'm as like as anything to quote the play on almost a daily basis, or at least think the lines! Hamlet has a workable quote for just about anything.
As for this particular production, there is much good to be said of it. The set and production design blew me away. Just beautifully done. And it's an interesting choice to bring the time period into a sort of 1930s or 40s feel. Lends itself to nice costuming.
Edits to the original text . . . seem designed to give the fangirl audience more of what they came to see. I could do an entire other essay on celebrity in theatre, but I'll refrain from it here except to say that some of the choices for this production appeared to have been made to maximize Cumberbatch's time on stage and allow him to chew as much scenery as possible. For example, they've chosen to start the play with Hamlet on stage and have given him the famous first line of "Who's there?" They also have Hamlet play Lucianus. The soliloquies are literally spotlighted. And there are some moments that are just too, for lack of a better word, precious.
Still, none of this detracted from my overall enjoyment. Director Lydsey Turner has made some other interesting choices. The slow motion moments that occur when Hamlet is soliloquizing—things like that always make me think of the effort the actors are putting in. Hamlet's sense of humor has likewise been punched up (and Polonius' somewhat blunted, again allowing Cumberbatch to play to his audience). I will say that making so much of the soliloquies—the slo-mo, the spotlights—brings to the fore just how many there are. For the first time ever, in my long history of Hamlet, I was like, "Oh, really? Again?"
I was actually most impressed with Ciarán Hinds as Claudius. He conveys the idea of seething rage just under the surface very well, balancing it with false obsequiousness. Instead of fawning over Gertrude, he becomes sharp with her; even in moments when he's being kind (or pretending to be), there is a sense of his power and short temper. Siân Brooke as Ophelia was, for me, the weakest point, and I feel like Gertrude was given short shrift in this version, though Anastasia Hille was magnificent with the material she was given.
There are things about Hamlet in general (not specific to this production) that have long made me wonder . . . Like the fact Gertrude can give a detailed account of Ophelia's drowning and yet no one seems to have tried to save Ophelia. Someone saw it, right? That's how they know how it happened? Either Gertrude was there, or someone reported it to her, but either way . . . Why didn't anyone go fish her out of the brook? (I recently read a take that suggests Gertrude actually murders Ophelia, which is an interesting idea.) And Hamlet, for all his seeming introspection, doesn't appear to have a good sense of how his actions affect others. "Laertes is home? Why? And why is he so mad at me?" Um . . .
But anyway. It was a fine show. Definitely interesting and beautifully staged. I feel fortunate to have seen in live, but there will be a filmed broadcast on October 15. You can visit this site to see if it will be playing near you. (Look to the right column.)
Look, Benedict, I love you (I hope you know that), and maybe that's all you want out of life and your career—for people to love you. In which case you can pack up and go home because you've achieved that much. I see you are at least doing your best to leverage your popularity toward worthy causes, but Rob [Thomas] has done it better. Get organized about it if you want to make a real difference. As for your Hamlet, well, it was fine, though hardly groundbreaking. Maybe it's impossible to bring anything new to such an old and worn role. I would suggest, instead of playing parts that have already been done so many times by so many people (Holmes, Hamlet), and instead of pretending to be other people who've already lived (Assange, Turing), you find something truly unique and make it your own.
As for this particular production, there is much good to be said of it. The set and production design blew me away. Just beautifully done. And it's an interesting choice to bring the time period into a sort of 1930s or 40s feel. Lends itself to nice costuming.
Edits to the original text . . . seem designed to give the fangirl audience more of what they came to see. I could do an entire other essay on celebrity in theatre, but I'll refrain from it here except to say that some of the choices for this production appeared to have been made to maximize Cumberbatch's time on stage and allow him to chew as much scenery as possible. For example, they've chosen to start the play with Hamlet on stage and have given him the famous first line of "Who's there?" They also have Hamlet play Lucianus. The soliloquies are literally spotlighted. And there are some moments that are just too, for lack of a better word, precious.
Still, none of this detracted from my overall enjoyment. Director Lydsey Turner has made some other interesting choices. The slow motion moments that occur when Hamlet is soliloquizing—things like that always make me think of the effort the actors are putting in. Hamlet's sense of humor has likewise been punched up (and Polonius' somewhat blunted, again allowing Cumberbatch to play to his audience). I will say that making so much of the soliloquies—the slo-mo, the spotlights—brings to the fore just how many there are. For the first time ever, in my long history of Hamlet, I was like, "Oh, really? Again?"
I was actually most impressed with Ciarán Hinds as Claudius. He conveys the idea of seething rage just under the surface very well, balancing it with false obsequiousness. Instead of fawning over Gertrude, he becomes sharp with her; even in moments when he's being kind (or pretending to be), there is a sense of his power and short temper. Siân Brooke as Ophelia was, for me, the weakest point, and I feel like Gertrude was given short shrift in this version, though Anastasia Hille was magnificent with the material she was given.
There are things about Hamlet in general (not specific to this production) that have long made me wonder . . . Like the fact Gertrude can give a detailed account of Ophelia's drowning and yet no one seems to have tried to save Ophelia. Someone saw it, right? That's how they know how it happened? Either Gertrude was there, or someone reported it to her, but either way . . . Why didn't anyone go fish her out of the brook? (I recently read a take that suggests Gertrude actually murders Ophelia, which is an interesting idea.) And Hamlet, for all his seeming introspection, doesn't appear to have a good sense of how his actions affect others. "Laertes is home? Why? And why is he so mad at me?" Um . . .
But anyway. It was a fine show. Definitely interesting and beautifully staged. I feel fortunate to have seen in live, but there will be a filmed broadcast on October 15. You can visit this site to see if it will be playing near you. (Look to the right column.)
Look, Benedict, I love you (I hope you know that), and maybe that's all you want out of life and your career—for people to love you. In which case you can pack up and go home because you've achieved that much. I see you are at least doing your best to leverage your popularity toward worthy causes, but Rob [Thomas] has done it better. Get organized about it if you want to make a real difference. As for your Hamlet, well, it was fine, though hardly groundbreaking. Maybe it's impossible to bring anything new to such an old and worn role. I would suggest, instead of playing parts that have already been done so many times by so many people (Holmes, Hamlet), and instead of pretending to be other people who've already lived (Assange, Turing), you find something truly unique and make it your own.
Movies: Far from the Madding Crowd
I watched this movie while flying to London, so I have to consider that it was not the best viewing conditions: small screen, etc. And it's not that I didn't like the movie, but it's clear it probably makes a much better book.
Thing is, I think I read this book as an undergraduate (we had to read a lot of Hardy), but I don't really remember. It all blurs together, and to this day I can only say I know I really didn't like Tess of the D'Urbervilles. Can't tell you a thing about the book itself, only that I hated it when I read it and have thus gone on to block it from memory. This one I don't recall hating, but it also clearly didn't leave much of an impression since I only vaguely remembered while watching the film the name Bathsheba sticking out in my head. Biblical much?
The story, then, is of Bathsheba Everdene (and yes, I did think "Katniss" every time her name was said, even if it's spelled differently), a much sought after independent woman. She is reluctant, however, to give up her freedom to any man. Pretty basic. First farmer Gabriel Oak asks her to marry him, then the wealthy Mr. Boldwood. Both are solid, reliable men, but Bathsheba declines their offers. Instead, she is swept off her feet by Sergeant Francis Toby and loses all her resolutions to remain independent in the face of his charm and boldness.
There is, I think, much that could be said about British reticence as depicted in this film (and book). One overarching theme seems to be that good men will not be flashy or bold. They will stick by you, be patient and persistent, and generally very quiet. They will send you longing looks, and their actions are respectful. These are the men to go for, ladies, this film seems to say. These are the ones who will make you happy in the end.
This message isn't singular to this film, of course, or even to Hardy. One can find similar feelings in Austen and such. But it is interesting to me. Americans, of course, are relatively brash by comparison. We value just the opposite in courtship: flash and pomp.
But Sergeant Toby's flash and boldness doesn't make Bathsheba happy in the end. He runs up gambling debts and puts her farm at risk. And then he meets his first love, who he thought had left him at the altar (she'd accidentally gone to the wrong church), and discovers she's pregnant with his child. But then she dies, and Toby tells Bathsheba he is done with her. He goes out to drown . . . Except not really.
Boldwood has once again asked Bathsheba to marry him, and she must seriously consider it, if only to save her farm. But then Toby returns and demands money, reminding Bathsheba that she is his wife and property . . . and [spoilers!] Boldwood shoots him. Again the lesson is that a good man will protect his woman, will be at her side.
And who has been at Bathsheba's side most constantly? Gabriel Oak, of course. As Boldwood is imprisoned for his crime of passion (but, we're told, will be spared execution), Gabriel gets ready to leave the farm. But then Bathsheba realizes how much she depends on him! And goes after him! Roll credits.
The other lesson worth looking at in this film and book is one that suggests a woman really can't make it on her own. Bathsheba is competent, but still requires men to help her—save her. Gabriel saves her flock of sheep when they become ill, Boldwood saves her from Toby. And Bathsheba's ultimate happiness is still predicated on her relationship with a man. Though, one might argue, at least she comes into the relationship as more of an equal than might be typical for the day and age (1870s).
It's a lean movie, and probably quite lovely when not viewed on a tiny screen with a terrible glare. Still, I feel like I might have gotten more from the book, as if maybe there's a lot of unfilmable thoughts in the prose . . . The movie weirdly starts with a voiceover by Bathsheba that never returns. Since I don't usually like voiceover narration, I'm not sorry, but I don't know if we need even those first few lines. Feels like an odd choice, yet again I wonder what is in the book that creates more feeling than the film is able to? Words really do sometimes work better than pictures.
Thing is, I think I read this book as an undergraduate (we had to read a lot of Hardy), but I don't really remember. It all blurs together, and to this day I can only say I know I really didn't like Tess of the D'Urbervilles. Can't tell you a thing about the book itself, only that I hated it when I read it and have thus gone on to block it from memory. This one I don't recall hating, but it also clearly didn't leave much of an impression since I only vaguely remembered while watching the film the name Bathsheba sticking out in my head. Biblical much?
The story, then, is of Bathsheba Everdene (and yes, I did think "Katniss" every time her name was said, even if it's spelled differently), a much sought after independent woman. She is reluctant, however, to give up her freedom to any man. Pretty basic. First farmer Gabriel Oak asks her to marry him, then the wealthy Mr. Boldwood. Both are solid, reliable men, but Bathsheba declines their offers. Instead, she is swept off her feet by Sergeant Francis Toby and loses all her resolutions to remain independent in the face of his charm and boldness.
There is, I think, much that could be said about British reticence as depicted in this film (and book). One overarching theme seems to be that good men will not be flashy or bold. They will stick by you, be patient and persistent, and generally very quiet. They will send you longing looks, and their actions are respectful. These are the men to go for, ladies, this film seems to say. These are the ones who will make you happy in the end.
This message isn't singular to this film, of course, or even to Hardy. One can find similar feelings in Austen and such. But it is interesting to me. Americans, of course, are relatively brash by comparison. We value just the opposite in courtship: flash and pomp.
But Sergeant Toby's flash and boldness doesn't make Bathsheba happy in the end. He runs up gambling debts and puts her farm at risk. And then he meets his first love, who he thought had left him at the altar (she'd accidentally gone to the wrong church), and discovers she's pregnant with his child. But then she dies, and Toby tells Bathsheba he is done with her. He goes out to drown . . . Except not really.
Boldwood has once again asked Bathsheba to marry him, and she must seriously consider it, if only to save her farm. But then Toby returns and demands money, reminding Bathsheba that she is his wife and property . . . and [spoilers!] Boldwood shoots him. Again the lesson is that a good man will protect his woman, will be at her side.
And who has been at Bathsheba's side most constantly? Gabriel Oak, of course. As Boldwood is imprisoned for his crime of passion (but, we're told, will be spared execution), Gabriel gets ready to leave the farm. But then Bathsheba realizes how much she depends on him! And goes after him! Roll credits.
The other lesson worth looking at in this film and book is one that suggests a woman really can't make it on her own. Bathsheba is competent, but still requires men to help her—save her. Gabriel saves her flock of sheep when they become ill, Boldwood saves her from Toby. And Bathsheba's ultimate happiness is still predicated on her relationship with a man. Though, one might argue, at least she comes into the relationship as more of an equal than might be typical for the day and age (1870s).
It's a lean movie, and probably quite lovely when not viewed on a tiny screen with a terrible glare. Still, I feel like I might have gotten more from the book, as if maybe there's a lot of unfilmable thoughts in the prose . . . The movie weirdly starts with a voiceover by Bathsheba that never returns. Since I don't usually like voiceover narration, I'm not sorry, but I don't know if we need even those first few lines. Feels like an odd choice, yet again I wonder what is in the book that creates more feeling than the film is able to? Words really do sometimes work better than pictures.
Television: Scorpion, "Satellite of Love"
So. We're doing the will they/won't they with Paige and Walter and with Toby and Happy? Ugh. Overkill much? Can the writers not think of any other potential drama to create between these people?
We've also added a snappy new (female!) government person. "See? She's a strong female character because she snaps orders at people!" Sigh.
I don't know. I like Scorpion, but . . . It's wearing thin.
Season 2 starts with Walter not quite ready for prime time as he continues to recover and go through physical therapy after last season's car accident. But of course Gabe gets a call (he's been working as an advisor on film sets, and we get a few random seconds of Gene Simmons) that brings our group back together, and Walter jumps in even though his doctor advises against it.
Walter has been having dizzy spells, btw. Which I'm guessing will be super important later.
Then something about missiles. And the group miscalculates a couple times . . . It actually wasn't all that interesting. Nor was any of the personal drama compelling. Which is why I'm questioning whether to keep watching this show. I'll give it another couple episodes to see if it can recapture me.
We've also added a snappy new (female!) government person. "See? She's a strong female character because she snaps orders at people!" Sigh.
I don't know. I like Scorpion, but . . . It's wearing thin.
Season 2 starts with Walter not quite ready for prime time as he continues to recover and go through physical therapy after last season's car accident. But of course Gabe gets a call (he's been working as an advisor on film sets, and we get a few random seconds of Gene Simmons) that brings our group back together, and Walter jumps in even though his doctor advises against it.
Walter has been having dizzy spells, btw. Which I'm guessing will be super important later.
Then something about missiles. And the group miscalculates a couple times . . . It actually wasn't all that interesting. Nor was any of the personal drama compelling. Which is why I'm questioning whether to keep watching this show. I'll give it another couple episodes to see if it can recapture me.
9.23.2015
Television: Gotham, "Damned If You Do . . ."
Do I even still really care about this show?
We start Season 2 with Jim now directing traffic and Bullock having quit the force to become a bartender. But Jim isn't an officer for long; he's fired when he roughs up his idiot partner.
I'm really tired of the whole Jim being down and out thing. It just feels repetitive, and if it's supposed to create any amount of tension, well, it doesn't.
This time Jim makes a last ditch effort to get back onto GCPD by asking Penguin for a favor. Penguin has become the high mucky-muck of Gotham's underworld. He tells Jim he'll get him back on the force if Jim collects a debt for him from a difficult minor crime boss. Jim is, naturally, torn. He doesn't want to be doing any work for the bad guys. But Bruce Wayne basically tells him to do it anyway. Bruce's stellar reasoning is that sometimes to do the right thing, it has to be the hard thing (or, in this case, a bad and illegal thing). This is, of course, the very line of thought that will one day lead Bruce to become Batman, but whatever.
I can't figure out if we're supposed to believe Bruce is "wise beyond his years" or what. He certainly comes across largely as juvenile and something of a brat. He and Alfred play together in making a bomb so they can blow open Bruce's father's secret lair. There Bruce finds a letter from his dad that amounts to "ignorance is bliss."
So then Jim does go ahead and do the job for Penguin, and Penguin in turn gets the commissioner to resign, and we get my favorite person to hate James Frain as the new guy. And he is, as James Frain always is, evil. Actively evil in a way the previous commissioner was not. Like, Peter Scolari was corrupt and all, but James Frain (and I probably won't bother to get to know his character's name) is working with murderously insane inmates from Arkham Asylum, including Barbara and Jerome.
Oh, and Nygma is losing his mind, but what else is new?
I dunno. If they could stop with Jim constantly being beaten down by various circumstances, let him get the upper hand for once . . . And if we could see more of Bullock, who is really a great character . . . But I'm just not feeling it.
We start Season 2 with Jim now directing traffic and Bullock having quit the force to become a bartender. But Jim isn't an officer for long; he's fired when he roughs up his idiot partner.
I'm really tired of the whole Jim being down and out thing. It just feels repetitive, and if it's supposed to create any amount of tension, well, it doesn't.
This time Jim makes a last ditch effort to get back onto GCPD by asking Penguin for a favor. Penguin has become the high mucky-muck of Gotham's underworld. He tells Jim he'll get him back on the force if Jim collects a debt for him from a difficult minor crime boss. Jim is, naturally, torn. He doesn't want to be doing any work for the bad guys. But Bruce Wayne basically tells him to do it anyway. Bruce's stellar reasoning is that sometimes to do the right thing, it has to be the hard thing (or, in this case, a bad and illegal thing). This is, of course, the very line of thought that will one day lead Bruce to become Batman, but whatever.
I can't figure out if we're supposed to believe Bruce is "wise beyond his years" or what. He certainly comes across largely as juvenile and something of a brat. He and Alfred play together in making a bomb so they can blow open Bruce's father's secret lair. There Bruce finds a letter from his dad that amounts to "ignorance is bliss."
So then Jim does go ahead and do the job for Penguin, and Penguin in turn gets the commissioner to resign, and we get my favorite person to hate James Frain as the new guy. And he is, as James Frain always is, evil. Actively evil in a way the previous commissioner was not. Like, Peter Scolari was corrupt and all, but James Frain (and I probably won't bother to get to know his character's name) is working with murderously insane inmates from Arkham Asylum, including Barbara and Jerome.
Oh, and Nygma is losing his mind, but what else is new?
I dunno. If they could stop with Jim constantly being beaten down by various circumstances, let him get the upper hand for once . . . And if we could see more of Bullock, who is really a great character . . . But I'm just not feeling it.
Television: The Muppets, "Pig Girls Don't Cry"
I guess I missed the pilot, but whatever.
This show feels like something that was in development around the same time 30 Rock got started and The Office was big. Which is to say, it feels a few years too old. They hang a lampshade on how the whole documentary angle is overdone (thanks, Gonzo), but go through with it anyway. And it doesn't really work for me. Because none of it is actually all that compelling or interesting.
The episode focuses on (a) Miss Piggy being Miss Piggy (that is, a diva) and not wanting Elizabeth Banks on her late night talkshow, (b) Fozzie meeting his girlfriend's parents, and (c) Kermit gaining a spare tire due to stress eating.
You see how I get 30 Rock + The Office. There's the faux documentary angle, there's everyone working together, but the setting is showbiz absurdity à la 30 Rock. And yet The Muppets falls short of either of those shows.
Also, Kermit's new girlfriend's thick Southern accent really bothers me for some reason.
In the end, I didn't laugh. I felt like they were mean to Tom Bergeron. I don't watch his show or anything, but still, he seems like a nice guy. Why are they poking fun at him exactly? And making Fozzie a central story was . . . Well, Fozzie never was one of my favorites, so maybe that's just me.
Sigh. I was just so underwhelmed. And I love the Muppets, so I really wanted to like this show. It's really too bad.
This show feels like something that was in development around the same time 30 Rock got started and The Office was big. Which is to say, it feels a few years too old. They hang a lampshade on how the whole documentary angle is overdone (thanks, Gonzo), but go through with it anyway. And it doesn't really work for me. Because none of it is actually all that compelling or interesting.
The episode focuses on (a) Miss Piggy being Miss Piggy (that is, a diva) and not wanting Elizabeth Banks on her late night talkshow, (b) Fozzie meeting his girlfriend's parents, and (c) Kermit gaining a spare tire due to stress eating.
You see how I get 30 Rock + The Office. There's the faux documentary angle, there's everyone working together, but the setting is showbiz absurdity à la 30 Rock. And yet The Muppets falls short of either of those shows.
Also, Kermit's new girlfriend's thick Southern accent really bothers me for some reason.
In the end, I didn't laugh. I felt like they were mean to Tom Bergeron. I don't watch his show or anything, but still, he seems like a nice guy. Why are they poking fun at him exactly? And making Fozzie a central story was . . . Well, Fozzie never was one of my favorites, so maybe that's just me.
Sigh. I was just so underwhelmed. And I love the Muppets, so I really wanted to like this show. It's really too bad.
9.21.2015
Television: Minority Report, "Pilot"
Meh.
It wasn't awful, but it wasn't great, either.
First we get this intro that tells us the story of the pre-cognitives. I suppose that's for anyone who never saw the movie or doesn't remember the movie. It's also to super-humanize these pre-cogs since they're going to be central to the story.
So way back when, these three siblings were used to stop crime before it started. That was a program called "Pre-Crime." When that program was ended, these three (Agatha, Arthur, and Dashiell) were pensioned off to some island where they could live in peace. Thus removed from all the stimuli, they were ostensibly no longer tormented by visions . . . Right? I mean, in the intro it was said they were seeing murders "within a 100-mile radius" before they happened. So if you live within 100 miles of nothing . . .
Well, I don't know. And it doesn't much matter because our central character is Dash, who has returned to the city. For whatever reason. Because the cabin is boring and Agatha is bossy? Seems like as good a reason as any. And Arthur already lives in the city and is making money through his abilities, too. But of course Dash isn't as selfish as his brother and only wants to help people.
Which is how Dash falls in with a homicide detective named Vega. And now they work together on the sly.
There's your setup.
Oh, except Agatha is having visions of her and her siblings being dragged back into service, and the question is whether Dash helping this cop is the reason why it happens. So . . . She can see things from more than 100 miles away? Or they still live within 100 miles of the city? (In which case, that was a crap location to park your retired pre-cogs.) Or Agatha can only see the visions because Dash was living at home up to that point and the visions involved him? But now that he's gone, then, the visions should also stop. Unless she's just seeing her own future now. God, that would suck.
Okay, well, the show was okay. Dash is a bit too earnest and innocent, and I'm kind of tired of the whole "maladapted" schtick where a main character is antisocial and weird but somehow supposed to be lovable anyway. Or if not lovable exactly, we're still given traits that are supposed to make us like him or her. Quirks. And then there is always a sidekick designed to help this person navigate the world. The sidekick is a "normal" person and sometimes a love interest besides.
Of course it's great to have a dynamic duo. We all love two characters with good chemistry and who play off one another well. But this particular dynamic has become the go-to in shows in recent years and is becoming a bit tiresome.
And while Dash and Vega do have okay chemistry, it isn't off the charts. This isn't Holmes and Watson or even Booth and Brennan caliber. So I'm not sold.
I will possibly give the show one more chance, though. And it seems like a good fit to accompany Gotham on Monday nights, too. (But I haven't had a chance to watch Gotham yet, so you'll have to wait on that one.)
It wasn't awful, but it wasn't great, either.
First we get this intro that tells us the story of the pre-cognitives. I suppose that's for anyone who never saw the movie or doesn't remember the movie. It's also to super-humanize these pre-cogs since they're going to be central to the story.
So way back when, these three siblings were used to stop crime before it started. That was a program called "Pre-Crime." When that program was ended, these three (Agatha, Arthur, and Dashiell) were pensioned off to some island where they could live in peace. Thus removed from all the stimuli, they were ostensibly no longer tormented by visions . . . Right? I mean, in the intro it was said they were seeing murders "within a 100-mile radius" before they happened. So if you live within 100 miles of nothing . . .
Well, I don't know. And it doesn't much matter because our central character is Dash, who has returned to the city. For whatever reason. Because the cabin is boring and Agatha is bossy? Seems like as good a reason as any. And Arthur already lives in the city and is making money through his abilities, too. But of course Dash isn't as selfish as his brother and only wants to help people.
Which is how Dash falls in with a homicide detective named Vega. And now they work together on the sly.
There's your setup.
Oh, except Agatha is having visions of her and her siblings being dragged back into service, and the question is whether Dash helping this cop is the reason why it happens. So . . . She can see things from more than 100 miles away? Or they still live within 100 miles of the city? (In which case, that was a crap location to park your retired pre-cogs.) Or Agatha can only see the visions because Dash was living at home up to that point and the visions involved him? But now that he's gone, then, the visions should also stop. Unless she's just seeing her own future now. God, that would suck.
Okay, well, the show was okay. Dash is a bit too earnest and innocent, and I'm kind of tired of the whole "maladapted" schtick where a main character is antisocial and weird but somehow supposed to be lovable anyway. Or if not lovable exactly, we're still given traits that are supposed to make us like him or her. Quirks. And then there is always a sidekick designed to help this person navigate the world. The sidekick is a "normal" person and sometimes a love interest besides.
Of course it's great to have a dynamic duo. We all love two characters with good chemistry and who play off one another well. But this particular dynamic has become the go-to in shows in recent years and is becoming a bit tiresome.
And while Dash and Vega do have okay chemistry, it isn't off the charts. This isn't Holmes and Watson or even Booth and Brennan caliber. So I'm not sold.
I will possibly give the show one more chance, though. And it seems like a good fit to accompany Gotham on Monday nights, too. (But I haven't had a chance to watch Gotham yet, so you'll have to wait on that one.)
Television: Doctor Who, "The Magician's Apprentice"
So first I watched that little 10-minute thing because my DVR recorded it, then the episode. And my first question is: Why does a show made in 2015 look like it came from 1995? Doctor Who reminds me of old episodes of Babylon 5 and Highlander. Sure, I loved those shows, and the production values were good for their time (well, okay, fair), but that was 20 years ago.
I hear a lot of people screaming that the low production values on Doctor Who are all part of the charm, but . . . I'm not convinced someone really just doesn't know what they're doing.
And then the episode, which was kind of a mess. We start at the end, which is also the beginning. Or maybe we start at the beginning and it's also the end? It's ceased to matter in this show, if it ever did. But anyway, the Doctor claims to be looking for a bookshop, but he apparently really sucks at navigation, or else the TARDIS is failing miserably. And it appears he's going to save this little boy from "hand mines" but . . . Well, we'll get to that.
Meanwhile, to everyone else the Doctor is missing. And Davros (creator of the Daleks) sends a snake guy out to find him. That planet with the women . . . And already I wasn't paying much attention, but I felt like that planet says a lot about how Moffat views women in general.
Meanwhile, Missy (sigh) freezes airplanes mid-flight in order to get some attention. So of course Clara is sent to meet her. But to prove she's still "bad," Missy randomly kills some men sent with Clara—men Missy specifically said should accompany her IIRC. There's the obligatory, "Shouldn't you be dead?" from Clara, but at this point we always just assume anyone is fair game and no one really stays dead. This fact means there is ZERO tension in Doctor Who any more. Nor is there much narrative cohesion. Watching the show these days is like staring at a plate of spaghetti and expecting it to tell you a story.
Missy has the Doctor's . . . something that amounts to a last will and testament. And since it hasn't opened or activated or whatever, they know the Doctor isn't dead. They end up finding him doing electric guitar for a bunch of medieval people (from the 10-minute preview thing). I'm not sure what we were going for here. Character development? Are we answering the critiques that Capaldi is too old and crotchety? He didn't come off any less so. Instead he seemed a bit desperate to prove he isn't old and crotchety, yet his "oh, come on, dudes!" still failed to be lighthearted.
Thing is, I haven't had a problem with Capaldi as the Doctor. I rather like how different he is from the antic Matt Smith. He and Jenna Coleman have no chemistry, though, so it's probably just as well she's leaving. In short, however, I think trying to liven up this Doctor is a mistake. Trying to force him into a new mold is a spectacular disaster.
Whatever. We do eventually get around to Davros, who is dying. And the Daleks take possession of the TARDIS, and they kill Missy and Clara and then destroy the TARDIS. And so we go back to the first scene and this time the Doctor kills the boy who would be Davros.
And this is what Davros wanted, ostensibly. He wanted to prove to the Doctor that compassion is not only useless but a fatal flaw. And now we're up for a whole season of angst as the Doctor deals with that, I guess. But it felt like a ridiculously long way around to get there.
I do wonder sometimes why I'm still watching the show. I'm not sure if it's to see how bad it can get, or to see if it gets better, or both. But I do find with each new episode my interest wanes and my mind wanders. So if any of the above is incorrect, or if I've missed something (and yes, I do know the medieval guy was a Dalek), it's because the show did not hold my full attention.
I hear a lot of people screaming that the low production values on Doctor Who are all part of the charm, but . . . I'm not convinced someone really just doesn't know what they're doing.
And then the episode, which was kind of a mess. We start at the end, which is also the beginning. Or maybe we start at the beginning and it's also the end? It's ceased to matter in this show, if it ever did. But anyway, the Doctor claims to be looking for a bookshop, but he apparently really sucks at navigation, or else the TARDIS is failing miserably. And it appears he's going to save this little boy from "hand mines" but . . . Well, we'll get to that.
Meanwhile, to everyone else the Doctor is missing. And Davros (creator of the Daleks) sends a snake guy out to find him. That planet with the women . . . And already I wasn't paying much attention, but I felt like that planet says a lot about how Moffat views women in general.
Meanwhile, Missy (sigh) freezes airplanes mid-flight in order to get some attention. So of course Clara is sent to meet her. But to prove she's still "bad," Missy randomly kills some men sent with Clara—men Missy specifically said should accompany her IIRC. There's the obligatory, "Shouldn't you be dead?" from Clara, but at this point we always just assume anyone is fair game and no one really stays dead. This fact means there is ZERO tension in Doctor Who any more. Nor is there much narrative cohesion. Watching the show these days is like staring at a plate of spaghetti and expecting it to tell you a story.
Missy has the Doctor's . . . something that amounts to a last will and testament. And since it hasn't opened or activated or whatever, they know the Doctor isn't dead. They end up finding him doing electric guitar for a bunch of medieval people (from the 10-minute preview thing). I'm not sure what we were going for here. Character development? Are we answering the critiques that Capaldi is too old and crotchety? He didn't come off any less so. Instead he seemed a bit desperate to prove he isn't old and crotchety, yet his "oh, come on, dudes!" still failed to be lighthearted.
Thing is, I haven't had a problem with Capaldi as the Doctor. I rather like how different he is from the antic Matt Smith. He and Jenna Coleman have no chemistry, though, so it's probably just as well she's leaving. In short, however, I think trying to liven up this Doctor is a mistake. Trying to force him into a new mold is a spectacular disaster.
Whatever. We do eventually get around to Davros, who is dying. And the Daleks take possession of the TARDIS, and they kill Missy and Clara and then destroy the TARDIS. And so we go back to the first scene and this time the Doctor kills the boy who would be Davros.
And this is what Davros wanted, ostensibly. He wanted to prove to the Doctor that compassion is not only useless but a fatal flaw. And now we're up for a whole season of angst as the Doctor deals with that, I guess. But it felt like a ridiculously long way around to get there.
I do wonder sometimes why I'm still watching the show. I'm not sure if it's to see how bad it can get, or to see if it gets better, or both. But I do find with each new episode my interest wanes and my mind wanders. So if any of the above is incorrect, or if I've missed something (and yes, I do know the medieval guy was a Dalek), it's because the show did not hold my full attention.
9.20.2015
Movies: The Man From U.N.C.L.E.
Starring: Henry Cavill, Armie Hammer, Alicia, Vikander
Directed By: Guy Ritchie
Written By: Guy Ritchie & Lionel Wigram, based on the television series by Sam Rolfe
Warner Bros., 2015
PG-13; 116 minutes
4.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
When this movie came out, I avoided reviews that would give away the plot, but I did see one question pop up again and again: Who is this movie for?
The teens and young adults, or new adults, or whatever they're calling them this week, won't have any reference for this movie, and the older viewers ostensibly weren't going to find the show they loved in this film franchise. I can't speak to the latter because I've never seen the show. I don't know how much like the show this film is or isn't. I can only guess that it has about as much in common with the source material as Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes does to Doyle. It's there to an extent and punched up in a lot of weird ways.
Still, as someone who'd never seen the show, I really did enjoy the movie. Okay, it has some big sins. Lots of exposition in dialogue (spy movies get away with that through "debriefings"), and then also some backstory written on the screen. But at least there's no voiceover narration, right?
As for the plot, it's fairly straight forward (and they explain it as they go along anyway). In a nutshell, the Russians and Americans team up to get information about an Italian family that is supposedly harboring a scientist who is developing a nuclear warhead. The whole thing is set during the Cold War, of course, and the opening credits are a quickie history lesson for those who didn't live through it.
This looks like a Guy Ritchie movie, by which I mean, if I hadn't know who'd directed it, I would've guessed without too much trouble. But I like Guy Ritchie movies, so . . . Cool.
Some of the humor is a little flat. They go for easy, predictable jokes. They try a little too hard in places. Yet they manage to avoid falling into parody or camp. It is a surprisingly satisfying balance that they strike.
And what Ritchie seems to do remarkably well in all his movies is to assemble a cast that has real chemistry. They're fun to watch, and the audience feels in a way they're joining in. RDJ and Jude Law have it, and Cavill and Hammer do, too. Which is why I'm really sorry this film didn't do better at the box office because I'd absolutely keep coming back for more.
So the answer to that first question is: People like me.
Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of those.
Directed By: Guy Ritchie
Written By: Guy Ritchie & Lionel Wigram, based on the television series by Sam Rolfe
Warner Bros., 2015
PG-13; 116 minutes
4.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
When this movie came out, I avoided reviews that would give away the plot, but I did see one question pop up again and again: Who is this movie for?
The teens and young adults, or new adults, or whatever they're calling them this week, won't have any reference for this movie, and the older viewers ostensibly weren't going to find the show they loved in this film franchise. I can't speak to the latter because I've never seen the show. I don't know how much like the show this film is or isn't. I can only guess that it has about as much in common with the source material as Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes does to Doyle. It's there to an extent and punched up in a lot of weird ways.
Still, as someone who'd never seen the show, I really did enjoy the movie. Okay, it has some big sins. Lots of exposition in dialogue (spy movies get away with that through "debriefings"), and then also some backstory written on the screen. But at least there's no voiceover narration, right?
As for the plot, it's fairly straight forward (and they explain it as they go along anyway). In a nutshell, the Russians and Americans team up to get information about an Italian family that is supposedly harboring a scientist who is developing a nuclear warhead. The whole thing is set during the Cold War, of course, and the opening credits are a quickie history lesson for those who didn't live through it.
This looks like a Guy Ritchie movie, by which I mean, if I hadn't know who'd directed it, I would've guessed without too much trouble. But I like Guy Ritchie movies, so . . . Cool.
Some of the humor is a little flat. They go for easy, predictable jokes. They try a little too hard in places. Yet they manage to avoid falling into parody or camp. It is a surprisingly satisfying balance that they strike.
And what Ritchie seems to do remarkably well in all his movies is to assemble a cast that has real chemistry. They're fun to watch, and the audience feels in a way they're joining in. RDJ and Jude Law have it, and Cavill and Hammer do, too. Which is why I'm really sorry this film didn't do better at the box office because I'd absolutely keep coming back for more.
So the answer to that first question is: People like me.
Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of those.
9.17.2015
Podcasts: James Bonding
So we've been making our way through the James Bond 50th Anniversary box set of Blu-rays. And then we found this podcast that goes over each film, so . . .
It's really just two guys from The Nerdist + a guest (or sometimes guests) having a conversation about whichever Bond film. And so of course there are many digressions and such. I tried to listen to the Skyfall one, for example, and got kind of annoyed that they weren't getting around to talking about the movie. But then we just watched You Only Live Twice last weekend, and so I started listening to that podcast this morning and found it better. As with anything of this sort, quality will vary from "episode" to episode.
This is really my introduction to podcasts, too. I mean, of course I know what they are, and I've even been told to do (and considered doing) my own. But because I can't really do audiobooks, I hesitated to try podcasts thinking I might have the same, I dunno, barrier. Turns out I don't, which is good to know. For me there's something about a story that has to been seen—that is, I have to see the words. I don't like to be read to. But podcasts are just people talking, and that doesn't bother me. Especially if they're funny.
I wouldn't say the James Bonding episodes I've listened to are all that funny, but they have their moments. And the information is interesting.
They start each podcast by asking their guest about his or her history with James Bond. So here's where I'll tell you mine: My parents were big fans, particularly of the Sean Connery ones. My mother had (still has, maybe) a huge crush on Connery. (Him and Sam Elliot, so . . . ???) For me, though, Bond was something that came on weird channels on Sunday afternoons. It was always either a Bond movie or a Western. I had this passing acquaintance with the films. I think I saw all of them, or nearly all, but nothing stuck with me until Timmy Dalton.
The Living Daylights was the first Bond film I saw in the cinema, and I recall really liking it. License to Kill would actually make a greater impression on me, though, probably because I also watched Miami Vice with my parents, and LtK is more like an MV episode adapted to be a Bond movie than anything else.
And then, of course, came Brosnan, who I'd loved in Remington Steele, so naturally I was all in for those, though looking back they make me cringe a bit.
There. That's the kind of digression you can expect in one of these podcasts. But seriously, despite the varying quality of the episodes, I've enjoyed it so far. Will have to branch out to other podcasts, but I'm taking it slow for the moment.
It's really just two guys from The Nerdist + a guest (or sometimes guests) having a conversation about whichever Bond film. And so of course there are many digressions and such. I tried to listen to the Skyfall one, for example, and got kind of annoyed that they weren't getting around to talking about the movie. But then we just watched You Only Live Twice last weekend, and so I started listening to that podcast this morning and found it better. As with anything of this sort, quality will vary from "episode" to episode.
This is really my introduction to podcasts, too. I mean, of course I know what they are, and I've even been told to do (and considered doing) my own. But because I can't really do audiobooks, I hesitated to try podcasts thinking I might have the same, I dunno, barrier. Turns out I don't, which is good to know. For me there's something about a story that has to been seen—that is, I have to see the words. I don't like to be read to. But podcasts are just people talking, and that doesn't bother me. Especially if they're funny.
I wouldn't say the James Bonding episodes I've listened to are all that funny, but they have their moments. And the information is interesting.
They start each podcast by asking their guest about his or her history with James Bond. So here's where I'll tell you mine: My parents were big fans, particularly of the Sean Connery ones. My mother had (still has, maybe) a huge crush on Connery. (Him and Sam Elliot, so . . . ???) For me, though, Bond was something that came on weird channels on Sunday afternoons. It was always either a Bond movie or a Western. I had this passing acquaintance with the films. I think I saw all of them, or nearly all, but nothing stuck with me until Timmy Dalton.
The Living Daylights was the first Bond film I saw in the cinema, and I recall really liking it. License to Kill would actually make a greater impression on me, though, probably because I also watched Miami Vice with my parents, and LtK is more like an MV episode adapted to be a Bond movie than anything else.
And then, of course, came Brosnan, who I'd loved in Remington Steele, so naturally I was all in for those, though looking back they make me cringe a bit.
There. That's the kind of digression you can expect in one of these podcasts. But seriously, despite the varying quality of the episodes, I've enjoyed it so far. Will have to branch out to other podcasts, but I'm taking it slow for the moment.
9.08.2015
Television: Fall Premieres
Variety has posted a list of upcoming premieres. What are you looking forward to seeing, either coming back or trying as new?
I'll admit I'm curious about the TV version of Minority Report. And I'll be trying this season's American Horror Story because I think hotels are a great location for that kind of thing (witness my short play-turned-film "Warm Bodies"/Adverse Possession). Also, I really liked that show Hotel when I was a kid? Remember that one?
What I'd love to find, though, is a good comedy. So if anyone has suggestions on that, I'm all ears. It's true that television is offering some of the best drama writing (and direction and cinematography) these days, but now everything is so heavy and dark, I really need some levity in my viewing diet! My tastes run to things like 30 Rock, Parks and Rec, The Office, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Community . . . Anyone? Anyone? Seriously, I'd write one myself except it's not my strength. Drama is easy; comedy is hard. I think because drama is a broader mark, and comedy you have to bullseye every time.
Anyway, mark your calendars.
Or, you know, just set your DVRs. Then you don't need the calendar.
I'll admit I'm curious about the TV version of Minority Report. And I'll be trying this season's American Horror Story because I think hotels are a great location for that kind of thing (witness my short play-turned-film "Warm Bodies"/Adverse Possession). Also, I really liked that show Hotel when I was a kid? Remember that one?
What I'd love to find, though, is a good comedy. So if anyone has suggestions on that, I'm all ears. It's true that television is offering some of the best drama writing (and direction and cinematography) these days, but now everything is so heavy and dark, I really need some levity in my viewing diet! My tastes run to things like 30 Rock, Parks and Rec, The Office, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Community . . . Anyone? Anyone? Seriously, I'd write one myself except it's not my strength. Drama is easy; comedy is hard. I think because drama is a broader mark, and comedy you have to bullseye every time.
Anyway, mark your calendars.
Or, you know, just set your DVRs. Then you don't need the calendar.
9.05.2015
Candles: My Current Collection
Every now and then I'm forced to catalogue my extensive collection of candles. Just to see what I have and what I like and don't like. Unfortunately, because I get so many of these at outlets stores, I may never find the ones I like again anyway. But it's worth keeping tabs on these things.
I'm into tea lights right now because I have a really pretty cut-glass holder, and I like that I can just let the tea lights burn until they're done. (I sometimes forget to snuff my big jar candles and will come into my office the next morning to find they're still going . . . They're in a safe location, of course, but still.)
My tea lights are all from the Yankee Candle outlet, and because I'm OCD or something, I have them arranged in their boxes by color. Colors of candles are as important to me as the scent. Certain days have certain colors you see (I have synesthesia, btw), so . . . Yeah.
My first stack of tea lights are: Loves Me, Loves Me Not; Christmas Rose; Lake Sunset. I once had Lake Sunset in a jar candle and loved it, so I was happy to find it in tea light form. In fact, I love all these (which are white). Christmas Rose especially because it reminds me more of the Blue Hydrangea candles I used to have, more so than the current Hydrangea ones.
The second stack: Sweet Honeysuckle; Spring Days; Sandalwood. The first two are yellow, and Sandalwood is sort of a pale beige. Honeysuckle reminds me of my childhood, which was filled with honeysuckle and jasmine. Spring Days is a nice one, but very strong. And I've always loved the scent of sandalwood, which comes out nicely in this candle.
Next: Napa Valley Harvest; Frankincense; Autumn Leaves. All in the orange family. The Frankincense in particular is quite strong. Napa Valley Harvest is a tad weak, and Autumn Leaves is just lovely.
Only two in the next stack: Pink Blush and Christmas Eve. Pink and red respectively. The Pink Blush is another rose scent, and it's nice but I like the Christmas Rose one more. Christmas Eve has a nice mix of fruity and spicy, rather like Christmas. I don't usually go for scents that have any "food" to them, but this one isn't like, say, cookies or whatever. So many winter candles rely on baking smells, and I hate that. I'm glad for this one.
Next: Dune Grass; Bay Leaf Wreath; Sparkling Pine. All shades of green. The Dune Grass you almost can't smell when you burn it, though, so I wouldn't get that one again. I haven't tried the other two yet, though they smell nice in the box.
I have a couple watery blue-green ones next: Water Garden and Ocean Water. Again, the Water Garden is almost too weak. Ocean Water is lovely and light, though, while still making its presence known.
My final stack of tea lights: Blue Hydrangea; Evening Air; Midnight Oasis. The Blue Hydrangea does not smell like I remember from the jar candles—it's almost too candy-like rather than floral. Evening Air (which is a deep blue color) is one of my favorites, though. And Midnight Oasis is lovely, too, and is a deep shade of purple.
You would think 19 different tea lights would be enough! But I do still have some jar candles. Many are just lingering, languishing. Quiet Sky is gray and smells nice in the jar but not strong when I burn it. Blue Island Sky is a great shade of deep turquoise and smells lovely. I've got a couple Hydrangeas jar candles still hanging around. Hearth is dark gray and smells like, well, burned wood, I guess. Or just smoke. I don't end up using it much. Starry Sky is like Quiet Sky in that it just isn't strong enough. But Exotic Bloom, which is deep red, is a lovely scent. And I've got some Riding Mower left over, which is dark green and smells like fresh-cut grass. Have always loved that candle, though its name is kinda dumb.
I'm always happy to take suggestion on candles to try. Or if you're a candlemaker and want me to test and review some of your products, feel free to contact me! I have a Scentsy warmer, though I don't use it quite as often.
I'm into tea lights right now because I have a really pretty cut-glass holder, and I like that I can just let the tea lights burn until they're done. (I sometimes forget to snuff my big jar candles and will come into my office the next morning to find they're still going . . . They're in a safe location, of course, but still.)
My tea lights are all from the Yankee Candle outlet, and because I'm OCD or something, I have them arranged in their boxes by color. Colors of candles are as important to me as the scent. Certain days have certain colors you see (I have synesthesia, btw), so . . . Yeah.
My first stack of tea lights are: Loves Me, Loves Me Not; Christmas Rose; Lake Sunset. I once had Lake Sunset in a jar candle and loved it, so I was happy to find it in tea light form. In fact, I love all these (which are white). Christmas Rose especially because it reminds me more of the Blue Hydrangea candles I used to have, more so than the current Hydrangea ones.
The second stack: Sweet Honeysuckle; Spring Days; Sandalwood. The first two are yellow, and Sandalwood is sort of a pale beige. Honeysuckle reminds me of my childhood, which was filled with honeysuckle and jasmine. Spring Days is a nice one, but very strong. And I've always loved the scent of sandalwood, which comes out nicely in this candle.
Next: Napa Valley Harvest; Frankincense; Autumn Leaves. All in the orange family. The Frankincense in particular is quite strong. Napa Valley Harvest is a tad weak, and Autumn Leaves is just lovely.
Only two in the next stack: Pink Blush and Christmas Eve. Pink and red respectively. The Pink Blush is another rose scent, and it's nice but I like the Christmas Rose one more. Christmas Eve has a nice mix of fruity and spicy, rather like Christmas. I don't usually go for scents that have any "food" to them, but this one isn't like, say, cookies or whatever. So many winter candles rely on baking smells, and I hate that. I'm glad for this one.
Next: Dune Grass; Bay Leaf Wreath; Sparkling Pine. All shades of green. The Dune Grass you almost can't smell when you burn it, though, so I wouldn't get that one again. I haven't tried the other two yet, though they smell nice in the box.
I have a couple watery blue-green ones next: Water Garden and Ocean Water. Again, the Water Garden is almost too weak. Ocean Water is lovely and light, though, while still making its presence known.
My final stack of tea lights: Blue Hydrangea; Evening Air; Midnight Oasis. The Blue Hydrangea does not smell like I remember from the jar candles—it's almost too candy-like rather than floral. Evening Air (which is a deep blue color) is one of my favorites, though. And Midnight Oasis is lovely, too, and is a deep shade of purple.
You would think 19 different tea lights would be enough! But I do still have some jar candles. Many are just lingering, languishing. Quiet Sky is gray and smells nice in the jar but not strong when I burn it. Blue Island Sky is a great shade of deep turquoise and smells lovely. I've got a couple Hydrangeas jar candles still hanging around. Hearth is dark gray and smells like, well, burned wood, I guess. Or just smoke. I don't end up using it much. Starry Sky is like Quiet Sky in that it just isn't strong enough. But Exotic Bloom, which is deep red, is a lovely scent. And I've got some Riding Mower left over, which is dark green and smells like fresh-cut grass. Have always loved that candle, though its name is kinda dumb.
I'm always happy to take suggestion on candles to try. Or if you're a candlemaker and want me to test and review some of your products, feel free to contact me! I have a Scentsy warmer, though I don't use it quite as often.
9.02.2015
Television: 7 Days in Hell
I wanted this to be funny. It wasn't, really.
I wasn't even sure whether to file this under "television" or "movies" because it's a TV movie. Do they still make those? Apparently so.
In a send-up of behind-the-scenes documentaries, 7 Days in Hell covers the fictional tennis match between Aaron Williams (Andy Samberg) and Charles Poole (Kit Harington). It meets expectations for ridiculousness but not for laughs, instead largely relying on vulgar sex humor. I'm no prude, but that stuff is only kind of funny, and so this little piece of fluff ends up being one joke told over and over again.
Well, wait. There is the joke of the foul-mouthed, drunken Queen Elizabeth II. So 7 Days in Hell actually can count two jokes to its name . . . Told over and over.
Really, it's the faux interview pieces that are the best. David Copperfield is an amazingly good sport and actually brought the most laughs.
There's not much more to say. The whole thing is pretty thin. ::shrug::
I wasn't even sure whether to file this under "television" or "movies" because it's a TV movie. Do they still make those? Apparently so.
In a send-up of behind-the-scenes documentaries, 7 Days in Hell covers the fictional tennis match between Aaron Williams (Andy Samberg) and Charles Poole (Kit Harington). It meets expectations for ridiculousness but not for laughs, instead largely relying on vulgar sex humor. I'm no prude, but that stuff is only kind of funny, and so this little piece of fluff ends up being one joke told over and over again.
Well, wait. There is the joke of the foul-mouthed, drunken Queen Elizabeth II. So 7 Days in Hell actually can count two jokes to its name . . . Told over and over.
Really, it's the faux interview pieces that are the best. David Copperfield is an amazingly good sport and actually brought the most laughs.
There's not much more to say. The whole thing is pretty thin. ::shrug::
8.29.2015
Movies: True Story
So this one didn't do well at the box office, and has 45% from the critics at Rotten Tomatoes, 42% from viewers. But I didn't think it was all that bad. It wasn't great, but it wasn't awful.
True Story IS a true story, though whenever something gets filtered through Hollywood . . . Well, but anyway, it's about ex-New York Times writer Mike Finkel and how he got entangled with murderer Christian Longo. Longo killed his entire family then went on the run using Finkel's identity. As a [recently disgraced] journalist, Finkel smelled a story and dove in.
My guess is most people didn't like that this is a talky movie. It's a lot of close-up shots, a lot of back and forth. There's no real action, though director Goold does at least try to alleviate things with flashbacks to the crime. It's a dark film—Longo killed his wife and three children—and heavy, and there's no real redemption in the end of the kind we've been trained to expect in movies.
Jonah Hill as Finkel and James Franco as Longo do a nice job, though Franco sometimes appears semi-catatonic, as if the movie is putting him to sleep even as he films it. He does play "psychopath" nicely, though. Felicity Jones plays Finkel's wife or girlfriend (not clear which) Jill, who later confronts Longo, but the scene is not quite earned. Though we see Jill get increasingly put off by Finkel's interest in Longo, and then Longo calls and weirds her out . . . It wasn't quite all there to make the scene of her lecturing Longo pay off.
In the end, True Story is an interesting character study. I'd like to maybe read the book now. But I can see how difficult it is to film something like this and make it compelling, which is why I think it tanked a bit with audiences.
True Story IS a true story, though whenever something gets filtered through Hollywood . . . Well, but anyway, it's about ex-New York Times writer Mike Finkel and how he got entangled with murderer Christian Longo. Longo killed his entire family then went on the run using Finkel's identity. As a [recently disgraced] journalist, Finkel smelled a story and dove in.
My guess is most people didn't like that this is a talky movie. It's a lot of close-up shots, a lot of back and forth. There's no real action, though director Goold does at least try to alleviate things with flashbacks to the crime. It's a dark film—Longo killed his wife and three children—and heavy, and there's no real redemption in the end of the kind we've been trained to expect in movies.
Jonah Hill as Finkel and James Franco as Longo do a nice job, though Franco sometimes appears semi-catatonic, as if the movie is putting him to sleep even as he films it. He does play "psychopath" nicely, though. Felicity Jones plays Finkel's wife or girlfriend (not clear which) Jill, who later confronts Longo, but the scene is not quite earned. Though we see Jill get increasingly put off by Finkel's interest in Longo, and then Longo calls and weirds her out . . . It wasn't quite all there to make the scene of her lecturing Longo pay off.
In the end, True Story is an interesting character study. I'd like to maybe read the book now. But I can see how difficult it is to film something like this and make it compelling, which is why I think it tanked a bit with audiences.
8.23.2015
Freebie: "Sherlock Holmes and the Adventure of Ichabod Reed"
One of my Sherlock Holmes stories is free on Amazon Kindle through Tuesday, August 25th. Click here to go get it.
Movies: Jodorowsky's Dune
Back at the height of his career, Alejandro Jodorowsky had big plans to adapt Frank Herbert's Dune to film. He went through a very long and involved process of collecting amazing talent to realize this dream, only to have it fall apart when the studios refused to take on the project. This documentary, then, is the story of what would have and could have been.
Now, I love Dune. Both the book and, yes, the Lynch movie. I realize it isn't, objectively, a very good film. And it certainly doesn't stand the test of time what with the dated FX. But I read the book when I was nine or ten, and I fell in love with it, so I guess I was predisposed to love the movie, too, when I finally caught the 4-hour version on cable. (Yes, I'm a firm member of the camp that declares the longer version is better. Makes more sense at least, though really, Dune is a film for the lovers of the book. I don't think it's meant to make sense to people who haven't read it, which is probably one of its chief flaws.)
Also, I love Toto.
BUT. This documentary opened doors to new ideas. Music in Dune by Pink Floyd? That would have been worth seeing! Or . . . hearing, I guess. David Carradine? Mick Jagger (in the role Sting eventually played)? Yeah, it's tantalizing to consider.
And the stories of how Jodorowsky went about reaching out to people and assembling this cast and crew is quite interesting as well.
Jodorowsky, too, is a lively storyteller as he recounts his efforts in interviews for the camera. He's refreshingly straightforward for an industry that likes to hedge and tiptoe. His disappointment, even after all these years, is palpable. The system let him down. Hollywood failed to see what he could see, no matter how he tried to show them. This is, unfortunately, so often the way it goes for visionaries.
As for Jodorowsky's ideas for Dune itself, well . . . As a fan of the book, I had difficulty buying in. While I could certainly see how different and innovative and ambitious the plans were, and I could also understand the message Jodorwsky was trying to get across by telling the story this way . . . I can't say I 100% loved it. It was just so over the top, even for epic sci-fi/fantasy. But then again, look at 70's sci-fi movies, or 70's anything, really. Over the top was the preferred method for pretty much everything. Lots of colors, lots of overacting, lots of beating people over their heads with "messages" and "meanings."
One of the most interesting features of the documentary comes at the end, though, when they juxtapose much of Jodorowsky's storyboards and conceptual art over films that seem to have lifted these things right from the massive book Jodorowsky sent to every major studio. Some of the similarities are uncanny.
Jodorowsky is 86 now and spry for his age. This documentary prompted him to direct his first movie in over a decade; The Dance of Reality showed at Cannes, and now Jodorowsky is filming Endless Poetry. He may have struggled to put the disappointment of a lost Dune behind him, but it's nice to see him coming back to his work.
Now, I love Dune. Both the book and, yes, the Lynch movie. I realize it isn't, objectively, a very good film. And it certainly doesn't stand the test of time what with the dated FX. But I read the book when I was nine or ten, and I fell in love with it, so I guess I was predisposed to love the movie, too, when I finally caught the 4-hour version on cable. (Yes, I'm a firm member of the camp that declares the longer version is better. Makes more sense at least, though really, Dune is a film for the lovers of the book. I don't think it's meant to make sense to people who haven't read it, which is probably one of its chief flaws.)
Also, I love Toto.
BUT. This documentary opened doors to new ideas. Music in Dune by Pink Floyd? That would have been worth seeing! Or . . . hearing, I guess. David Carradine? Mick Jagger (in the role Sting eventually played)? Yeah, it's tantalizing to consider.
And the stories of how Jodorowsky went about reaching out to people and assembling this cast and crew is quite interesting as well.
Jodorowsky, too, is a lively storyteller as he recounts his efforts in interviews for the camera. He's refreshingly straightforward for an industry that likes to hedge and tiptoe. His disappointment, even after all these years, is palpable. The system let him down. Hollywood failed to see what he could see, no matter how he tried to show them. This is, unfortunately, so often the way it goes for visionaries.
As for Jodorowsky's ideas for Dune itself, well . . . As a fan of the book, I had difficulty buying in. While I could certainly see how different and innovative and ambitious the plans were, and I could also understand the message Jodorwsky was trying to get across by telling the story this way . . . I can't say I 100% loved it. It was just so over the top, even for epic sci-fi/fantasy. But then again, look at 70's sci-fi movies, or 70's anything, really. Over the top was the preferred method for pretty much everything. Lots of colors, lots of overacting, lots of beating people over their heads with "messages" and "meanings."
One of the most interesting features of the documentary comes at the end, though, when they juxtapose much of Jodorowsky's storyboards and conceptual art over films that seem to have lifted these things right from the massive book Jodorowsky sent to every major studio. Some of the similarities are uncanny.
Jodorowsky is 86 now and spry for his age. This documentary prompted him to direct his first movie in over a decade; The Dance of Reality showed at Cannes, and now Jodorowsky is filming Endless Poetry. He may have struggled to put the disappointment of a lost Dune behind him, but it's nice to see him coming back to his work.
8.21.2015
Music: The Great Unknown by Rob Thomas
We all know I love Rob. So, you know, keep in mind I'm probably biased here.
Aquarians are weird. They're fiercely loyal and committed, but also fluid. They need things to move. Their also very caught up in connections, wether it those ties be between people or society at large. For an Aquarian it's more or less the same thing, actually, because they see that it's the minute bonds between people that hold us together as a world population. That's why so many Aquarians end up being activists of one kind or another. They see and feel all this so clearly it's sometimes painful. And like their Tarot significator the Star card, they must channel all that (pour the water) into their art or work or hobbies.
I don't mean to get woo-woo on you. It's just that these themes are recurring for Rob in his music. And yet one can't say "more of the same," really, because as an Aquarian he is fluid and does change things up a bit. There's something very definitely him at the core—echoes, say, of "Lonely No More" and the like—and yet no one of his solo albums, or of Matchbox Twenty's albums for that matter, sounds really alike.
Now, I originally said of "Trust You" that it didn't sound like Rob at all. And it still doesn't to me, not really. That song has Ryan Tedder/OneRepublic written all over it. That said, it has grown on me a bit. Other songs on The Great Unknown called to mind American Authors and Jason Mraz. This isn't a judgement, and not necessarily a bad thing, just very noticeable to me.
That said, I really did enjoy my first couple listens to the album. Most of it is upbeat, even danceable. The title song is slower and, intentionally or not, evokes the 23rd Psalm with its talk of valleys and, well, The Great Unknown.
I think so far I most like "Nlytm" and "Lie To Me," though there's no one song I don't like, which is pretty impressive. Yes, even "Trust You" will stay on my iPod. For now.
The whole thing hangs together quite well if you listen to it straight through. The next test will be to see if, when my iPod is on shuffle, I feel the need to skip through any of these songs when they surface. It does make a difference, believe it or not. Something that's fine in a bloc may not stand alone very well.
But thus far, it's all good.
Aquarians are weird. They're fiercely loyal and committed, but also fluid. They need things to move. Their also very caught up in connections, wether it those ties be between people or society at large. For an Aquarian it's more or less the same thing, actually, because they see that it's the minute bonds between people that hold us together as a world population. That's why so many Aquarians end up being activists of one kind or another. They see and feel all this so clearly it's sometimes painful. And like their Tarot significator the Star card, they must channel all that (pour the water) into their art or work or hobbies.
I don't mean to get woo-woo on you. It's just that these themes are recurring for Rob in his music. And yet one can't say "more of the same," really, because as an Aquarian he is fluid and does change things up a bit. There's something very definitely him at the core—echoes, say, of "Lonely No More" and the like—and yet no one of his solo albums, or of Matchbox Twenty's albums for that matter, sounds really alike.
Now, I originally said of "Trust You" that it didn't sound like Rob at all. And it still doesn't to me, not really. That song has Ryan Tedder/OneRepublic written all over it. That said, it has grown on me a bit. Other songs on The Great Unknown called to mind American Authors and Jason Mraz. This isn't a judgement, and not necessarily a bad thing, just very noticeable to me.
That said, I really did enjoy my first couple listens to the album. Most of it is upbeat, even danceable. The title song is slower and, intentionally or not, evokes the 23rd Psalm with its talk of valleys and, well, The Great Unknown.
I think so far I most like "Nlytm" and "Lie To Me," though there's no one song I don't like, which is pretty impressive. Yes, even "Trust You" will stay on my iPod. For now.
The whole thing hangs together quite well if you listen to it straight through. The next test will be to see if, when my iPod is on shuffle, I feel the need to skip through any of these songs when they surface. It does make a difference, believe it or not. Something that's fine in a bloc may not stand alone very well.
But thus far, it's all good.
8.19.2015
Random
I don't know what's going on in France, but they've been slamming this site hard the past few days. Hello, over there!
I wish I had interesting things to say, but I'm deep in the throes of a current project, and another in the wings, and I haven't been watching much television or reading a whole lot. Well, I'm trying to catch up with Proof. I do like that show. It's not powerful or anything, but it's entertaining enough that I keep watching. Whereas, brilliant as Mr. Robot is, somehow I'm less compelled. What makes the difference, I wonder? It might have to do with effort. Proof doesn't really require any, and right now I don't have the time to put a lot of effort into my TV viewing. And the Mr. Robot schtick is starting to wear a bit thin for me. ::shrug::
As for books, well, I wrote about those not too long ago. Reading Chrestomanci to my son each evening, and I've started Connie Willis' To Say Nothing of the Dog, which I'm enjoying, though I only get to read it in the bath.
Meanwhile, I'm slamming away at my WIP and have already lined up another project with an indie director, so . . . Busy, busy! But I'm a much better, nicer person when I'm writing, so it's best for everyone that I keep going.
I wish I had interesting things to say, but I'm deep in the throes of a current project, and another in the wings, and I haven't been watching much television or reading a whole lot. Well, I'm trying to catch up with Proof. I do like that show. It's not powerful or anything, but it's entertaining enough that I keep watching. Whereas, brilliant as Mr. Robot is, somehow I'm less compelled. What makes the difference, I wonder? It might have to do with effort. Proof doesn't really require any, and right now I don't have the time to put a lot of effort into my TV viewing. And the Mr. Robot schtick is starting to wear a bit thin for me. ::shrug::
As for books, well, I wrote about those not too long ago. Reading Chrestomanci to my son each evening, and I've started Connie Willis' To Say Nothing of the Dog, which I'm enjoying, though I only get to read it in the bath.
Meanwhile, I'm slamming away at my WIP and have already lined up another project with an indie director, so . . . Busy, busy! But I'm a much better, nicer person when I'm writing, so it's best for everyone that I keep going.
8.15.2015
Books: My Current Stack
I've slowly been digging my way through Ready Player One and The House on Durrow Street. Both are good, but for whatever reason I cannot read them in large chunks. It might say more about my current restless state of mind than about the books, though.
I tried to read The Book of Eleanor—I love the story of Eleanor and Henry II—but I only got a few pages in. I didn't care for the writing style. That is, of course, subjective. I'm sure it's a fine book for those who like the way Ms. Kaufman writes. And it could be, too, that I just so love Alison Weir's novel that nothing else looks good to me by comparison.
The book I'm most enjoying at the moment is the one I'm reading aloud to my 9-year-old son: Charmed Life by Diana Wynne Jones. We're doing all the Chrestomanci books, and I'd forgotten how much I absolutely love them. I look forward to our evening reads as much or more than my son does these days.
In the wings, I have Life after God by Douglas Coupland, Three Maids for a Crown by Ella March Chase, and Broken Harbor by Tana French. Plus we're planning a trip to the library this afternoon, so maybe I'll find something that catches my fancy. Something that keeps me pinned to the page. These days that's been hard to come by.
I tried to read The Book of Eleanor—I love the story of Eleanor and Henry II—but I only got a few pages in. I didn't care for the writing style. That is, of course, subjective. I'm sure it's a fine book for those who like the way Ms. Kaufman writes. And it could be, too, that I just so love Alison Weir's novel that nothing else looks good to me by comparison.
The book I'm most enjoying at the moment is the one I'm reading aloud to my 9-year-old son: Charmed Life by Diana Wynne Jones. We're doing all the Chrestomanci books, and I'd forgotten how much I absolutely love them. I look forward to our evening reads as much or more than my son does these days.
In the wings, I have Life after God by Douglas Coupland, Three Maids for a Crown by Ella March Chase, and Broken Harbor by Tana French. Plus we're planning a trip to the library this afternoon, so maybe I'll find something that catches my fancy. Something that keeps me pinned to the page. These days that's been hard to come by.
8.14.2015
Television: True Detective, Season 2
Finally caught up, and the finale of True Detective really just left me with the question: "Why is James Frain such an asshole?" (I'm sure he's truly a very nice man. But he does asshole quite well.)
I'll say again that the first season was so amazing one couldn't really have hoped or expected this one to match it. The tone in Season 2 was similar to the first, and . . . the filters? They were going for grit, but it was the story that fell flat for me. A bunch of land or property or whatever? It amounted to a turf war, I think, and that kind of thing doesn't interest me much.
They could have done more with the characters, gone deeper. But with more characters sharing the screen in the same amount of hours, I guess they had to stay in shallower waters. I'm a character person, so when given a wonky, un-engaging plot and not much character development, I'm generally underwhelmed.
The pacing was a bit weird, too. Those first four episodes dragged up to that tipping point at which they finally hit the meat of the story (after leaping ahead in time). By then it was almost too late to salvage the season; most viewers and critics were already annoyed and/or bored. I understand why the season was written and constructed the way it was, but that doesn't make me like it any better.
Still, I'll probably watch whatever they do next. The third season is always the true test, I think, after a stellar first outing. When Season 1 is amazing, Season 2 is necessarily going to be a sophomore slump, and Season 3 will be the point at which one can determine whether Season 1 was a fluke of beginner's luck or if there's any real talent in the work. (No pressure, guys.)
I'll say again that the first season was so amazing one couldn't really have hoped or expected this one to match it. The tone in Season 2 was similar to the first, and . . . the filters? They were going for grit, but it was the story that fell flat for me. A bunch of land or property or whatever? It amounted to a turf war, I think, and that kind of thing doesn't interest me much.
They could have done more with the characters, gone deeper. But with more characters sharing the screen in the same amount of hours, I guess they had to stay in shallower waters. I'm a character person, so when given a wonky, un-engaging plot and not much character development, I'm generally underwhelmed.
The pacing was a bit weird, too. Those first four episodes dragged up to that tipping point at which they finally hit the meat of the story (after leaping ahead in time). By then it was almost too late to salvage the season; most viewers and critics were already annoyed and/or bored. I understand why the season was written and constructed the way it was, but that doesn't make me like it any better.
Still, I'll probably watch whatever they do next. The third season is always the true test, I think, after a stellar first outing. When Season 1 is amazing, Season 2 is necessarily going to be a sophomore slump, and Season 3 will be the point at which one can determine whether Season 1 was a fluke of beginner's luck or if there's any real talent in the work. (No pressure, guys.)
8.13.2015
Visit Little London!
By which I mean my home office. You can see the mess magic on my Facebook page. (Okay, yes, also the mess.)
8.12.2015
Movies: Ant-Man
I hate to say it . . . But I'm going to say it anyway . . . This movie bored me.
Okay, okay, don't throw anything just yet!
I went in with no foreknowledge of this character except that he's based on yet another comic book and can shrink. Right? And I saw the film (in 3D) on a cruise ship, because Disney can show its own first-run films on its ships. So venue could have played a part, and mood, etc.
But still. I was bored.
There were a few funny moments. A few. But most of the movie was just very plot-plot-plodding. I mean, I love Michael Douglas, so glad to see him back on the screen. And I generally like Paul Rudd, too. And I think they had pretty good screen chemistry. I just wish they'd had more interesting things to do.
It sort of felt like the first Iron Man again in that there were rival inventors with rival suits, etc. And there was that forced Falcon fight thing. Felt like a desperate move to tie this film in with the others. But Ant-Man is only a second-tier hero, so he gets Falcon instead of, say, Captain America or one of those.
At least, it feels like Ant-Man is second tier. While technically there's nothing really wrong with it, the film comes across as rote and colorless. There's no flavor. (Does that mean it's tasteless? Hmm.) It's as if someone followed a recipe but couldn't be bothered to add any spice. Sort of a "get it done and out" thing with no investment in detail.
I realize it was a hit. And that a lot of people liked it. And maybe on another viewing, under different circumstances, I'd find more to like about it, too. But my initial impression? Meh.
Okay, okay, don't throw anything just yet!
I went in with no foreknowledge of this character except that he's based on yet another comic book and can shrink. Right? And I saw the film (in 3D) on a cruise ship, because Disney can show its own first-run films on its ships. So venue could have played a part, and mood, etc.
But still. I was bored.
There were a few funny moments. A few. But most of the movie was just very plot-plot-plodding. I mean, I love Michael Douglas, so glad to see him back on the screen. And I generally like Paul Rudd, too. And I think they had pretty good screen chemistry. I just wish they'd had more interesting things to do.
It sort of felt like the first Iron Man again in that there were rival inventors with rival suits, etc. And there was that forced Falcon fight thing. Felt like a desperate move to tie this film in with the others. But Ant-Man is only a second-tier hero, so he gets Falcon instead of, say, Captain America or one of those.
At least, it feels like Ant-Man is second tier. While technically there's nothing really wrong with it, the film comes across as rote and colorless. There's no flavor. (Does that mean it's tasteless? Hmm.) It's as if someone followed a recipe but couldn't be bothered to add any spice. Sort of a "get it done and out" thing with no investment in detail.
I realize it was a hit. And that a lot of people liked it. And maybe on another viewing, under different circumstances, I'd find more to like about it, too. But my initial impression? Meh.
7.31.2015
Movies: Mr. Holmes
Starring: Ian McKellen, Laura Linney, Milo Parker
Directed By: Bill Condon
Written By: Jeffrey Hatcher (Screenplay), from the novel by Mitch Cullin, based on characters created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Miramax/BBC Films, 2015
PG; 104 minutes
4.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I had to see this one, didn't I? Of course I did, though I hadn't realized it was based on a book. Unfortunately, this isn't one of those circumstances in which I now feel the need to go read the book, possibly because the film did a very nice job of its own so that I don't have any urge to revisit it all in prose.
On the flip side, this movie did instill in me the fear that Sir Ian McKellen might die soon. Please, please tell me it's only that he's such a very good actor.
The story is simple enough and neatly nested. An aging Holmes (McKellen) has retired to Sussex and keeps bees. He is tended by a housekeeper named Mrs. Munro (Linney) and her son Roger (Parker). At the start of the film, Holmes has just returned from a trip to Japan in which he has sought out the prickly ash plant in the hopes it will help him with his failing memory. Holmes is trying particularly to remember his final case, the one that drove him to retirement. He knows he must have failed, and badly, to have been so driven off his work. The memories come in flashes, thus the nesting of past into present.
It's a subtle movie and beautifully done. Mrs. Munro finds Holmes difficult to live with and care for, to the point she is ready to move on to a new situation, but her son Roger has a growing attachment to Holmes. And Holmes, too, becomes attached to Roger in his way; we see Holmes is his best self when with Roger. It is so understated, yet also unmistakable, this bond between the two.
I will say the score to the film was at times a bit much. There was nothing bad about the music except that at times I found it distracting.
And I would be remiss if I did not say YAY! to seeing Nicholas Rowe as Holmes again, if only briefly and in the form of a bad matinee. He was my first crush, after all.
Anyone hoping for Watson will be disappointed; we learn he has passed away, and even in flashback we never see his face.
All in all, it was a sweet, lovely, and solid film, nicely constructed and beautifully made.
Directed By: Bill Condon
Written By: Jeffrey Hatcher (Screenplay), from the novel by Mitch Cullin, based on characters created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Miramax/BBC Films, 2015
PG; 104 minutes
4.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I had to see this one, didn't I? Of course I did, though I hadn't realized it was based on a book. Unfortunately, this isn't one of those circumstances in which I now feel the need to go read the book, possibly because the film did a very nice job of its own so that I don't have any urge to revisit it all in prose.
On the flip side, this movie did instill in me the fear that Sir Ian McKellen might die soon. Please, please tell me it's only that he's such a very good actor.
The story is simple enough and neatly nested. An aging Holmes (McKellen) has retired to Sussex and keeps bees. He is tended by a housekeeper named Mrs. Munro (Linney) and her son Roger (Parker). At the start of the film, Holmes has just returned from a trip to Japan in which he has sought out the prickly ash plant in the hopes it will help him with his failing memory. Holmes is trying particularly to remember his final case, the one that drove him to retirement. He knows he must have failed, and badly, to have been so driven off his work. The memories come in flashes, thus the nesting of past into present.
It's a subtle movie and beautifully done. Mrs. Munro finds Holmes difficult to live with and care for, to the point she is ready to move on to a new situation, but her son Roger has a growing attachment to Holmes. And Holmes, too, becomes attached to Roger in his way; we see Holmes is his best self when with Roger. It is so understated, yet also unmistakable, this bond between the two.
I will say the score to the film was at times a bit much. There was nothing bad about the music except that at times I found it distracting.
And I would be remiss if I did not say YAY! to seeing Nicholas Rowe as Holmes again, if only briefly and in the form of a bad matinee. He was my first crush, after all.
Anyone hoping for Watson will be disappointed; we learn he has passed away, and even in flashback we never see his face.
All in all, it was a sweet, lovely, and solid film, nicely constructed and beautifully made.
7.30.2015
Adverse Possession
So in 2011, as I was getting back into writing, one of my friends suggested I try a short stage play. The result was "Warm Bodies," which premiered in February 2012 as part Valley Rep's (now Exit 7) play contest. "Warm Bodies" then went on to be featured in Source Festival's theatre program that June. And was then picked up by a production company in San Diego and made into a short film they retitled Adverse Possession (because Warm Bodies was already taken).
I say "a production company" because it seems their name is in flux at the moment.
But in any case, they've given me permission to share the final result, which you can see here.
The film has been submitted to a couple festivals; we're waiting to hear if it gets in anywhere. I wasn't involved at all in the production itself (most screenwriters aren't, I don't believe). I did get periodic updates, which I very much appreciated.
The big difference, I think, between having your play staged and having it made into a movie—and if you read this site with any regularity, you may have heard me say this before—is that plays are fluid. They change from production to production, and sometimes from one night to the next in the same production. But once it's committed to film, it's static. I don't have a preference, mind. I just find it an interesting distinction.
In any case, I'm very grateful for the beginner's luck that landed me all these marvelous opportunities. I hope to continue to be lucky! I do have another script optioned, and two more in the oven. Plus that book of mine coming out in January. So I guess I can't complain. (Well, okay, but I've yet to get another play staged. Humph. Still, I prefer to count my blessings.)
I say "a production company" because it seems their name is in flux at the moment.
But in any case, they've given me permission to share the final result, which you can see here.
The film has been submitted to a couple festivals; we're waiting to hear if it gets in anywhere. I wasn't involved at all in the production itself (most screenwriters aren't, I don't believe). I did get periodic updates, which I very much appreciated.
The big difference, I think, between having your play staged and having it made into a movie—and if you read this site with any regularity, you may have heard me say this before—is that plays are fluid. They change from production to production, and sometimes from one night to the next in the same production. But once it's committed to film, it's static. I don't have a preference, mind. I just find it an interesting distinction.
In any case, I'm very grateful for the beginner's luck that landed me all these marvelous opportunities. I hope to continue to be lucky! I do have another script optioned, and two more in the oven. Plus that book of mine coming out in January. So I guess I can't complain. (Well, okay, but I've yet to get another play staged. Humph. Still, I prefer to count my blessings.)
7.29.2015
New York Lenormand & Burning Serpent Oracle
I recently participated in an Indiegogo campaign for new Lenormand cards by Robert M. Place. I've long enjoyed his Tarot of the Sevenfold Mystery and was excited to have more decks by him. In this case, I got the Lenormand deck and the Burning Serpent Oracle.
I own a number of Lenormand decks now but none as traditional looking at this one. But even this one is a bit different because I chose the deck (there were options) that included Tarot correspondences instead of the playing cards normally featured on a Lenormand deck.
So instead of the Ace of Clubs, you see the Ring card above has the Ace of Wands on it. I find this adds an interesting new layer to my readings. (Your mileage may vary, depending on how well you know Tarot; if you have to run and look up each Tarot card, having them present on your Lenormand deck may only make things more complicated.)
I like the size of these cards, too; they're a little larger than my others. But beware the sharp corners!
And be sure you either already know Lenormand or have a handy reference book because this deck did not come with a manual.
The Burning Serpent Oracle, however, came with both a small reference pamphlet and a larger book that gives more details about each card. This oracle is more or less a Lenormand deck with some tweaks. For example, instead of a Child card, this deck has The Boy and The Girl. It also comes with two Man cards and two Woman cards so that one can either read for same-sex partners or can assign various identities to cards—one might be a partner and the other might stand for "any other man," or one might be someone you know and the other stand for someone you don't know, or something like that.
The Burning Serpent also has two additional cards: Osiris and Isis. According to the companion book, these represent the higher self of man and woman. Additional meanings for Osiris include possible danger from an unexpected source, while Isis may stand for achieving something thought impossible. When you think about their myths, this makes sense.
It's a lovely deck and I'm very much enjoying it. Both the New York Lenormand and the Burning Serpent Oracle are wonderful additions to my growing collection.
I own a number of Lenormand decks now but none as traditional looking at this one. But even this one is a bit different because I chose the deck (there were options) that included Tarot correspondences instead of the playing cards normally featured on a Lenormand deck.
So instead of the Ace of Clubs, you see the Ring card above has the Ace of Wands on it. I find this adds an interesting new layer to my readings. (Your mileage may vary, depending on how well you know Tarot; if you have to run and look up each Tarot card, having them present on your Lenormand deck may only make things more complicated.)
I like the size of these cards, too; they're a little larger than my others. But beware the sharp corners!
And be sure you either already know Lenormand or have a handy reference book because this deck did not come with a manual.
The Burning Serpent Oracle, however, came with both a small reference pamphlet and a larger book that gives more details about each card. This oracle is more or less a Lenormand deck with some tweaks. For example, instead of a Child card, this deck has The Boy and The Girl. It also comes with two Man cards and two Woman cards so that one can either read for same-sex partners or can assign various identities to cards—one might be a partner and the other might stand for "any other man," or one might be someone you know and the other stand for someone you don't know, or something like that.
 |
| Sample 3-card reading from Burning Serpent |
The Burning Serpent also has two additional cards: Osiris and Isis. According to the companion book, these represent the higher self of man and woman. Additional meanings for Osiris include possible danger from an unexpected source, while Isis may stand for achieving something thought impossible. When you think about their myths, this makes sense.
It's a lovely deck and I'm very much enjoying it. Both the New York Lenormand and the Burning Serpent Oracle are wonderful additions to my growing collection.
7.27.2015
Movies: Pixels
Starring: Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Michelle Monaghan, Peter Dinklage, Josh Gad
Directed By: Chris Columbus
Written By: Tim Herlihy, Timothy Dowling (Screenplay); Tim Herlihy (Story); Patrick Jean (Short)
Happy Madison/1492, 2015
PG-13; 105 minutes
2.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
My 5-year-old son has wanted to see this movie since the first time he saw a preview for it. He's talked of almost nothing else. And he loved it.
Which tells you something about the film. It's an uncomplicated bit of nostalgic fluff that lacks depth. Sure, my kids don't have any context for 80's video games, but it hardly mattered. If anything, Pixels made them curious about old arcade games. Now they want to visit a local arcade museum and try playing the cabinet games for themselves. A far cry from iPad and Wii stuff.
There's plenty in the movie that raises questions if anyone happens to think too hard about it. For one, under what circumstances would the people of the United States elect someone like Kevin James president? And why didn't they evacuate New York City when they knew what was coming? Why does Lady Lisa look human when the rest of the video game invaders appear "pixelated" (they're really voxels, but I guess that just didn't have the same ring to it)? And why do all the characters appear to have graduated from—as Cinema Sins would call it—the Prometheus school of running away from things?
Yeah, these issues were obvious enough to distract me from the movie. Or, really, the movie didn't have enough meat on its bones to keep me occupied, so my mind went in desperate search of sustenance. But it was stretched from an earlier short film, so one can't expect a feast when the ingredients were so few.
Pixels begins in 1982, where a younger version of Sandler's character Sam Brenner comes in second to a younger version of Dinklage's Eddie at a video gaming contest. Then flash ahead to modern day and Sam is one of those nerd technicians who install TVs and computers for places like Best Buy. Meanwhile, by some bizarre twist of fate, his best friend Cooper (James) is president. Of, like, the United States. And terrible at it.
Then the aliens arrive. Having intercepted a space capsule sent out in 1982 and misinterpreted the contents, they apparently believe humans wage war via video gaming contests (the capsule included video footage of Sam and Eddie battling it out at the contest). Assuming humans are therefore bloodthirsty, the aliens—who are never given a name—decide to go on the offense and challenge the world by creating giant versions of the 80's games. If they win three, they will destroy Earth. If we win three, they will leave us in peace.
It is, of course, utterly ridiculous. Clearly these aliens have technology that is far beyond ours and could annihilate us without ever bothering with the video game thing. But we get almost no real look at this alien culture except through a "trophy" Q-Bert that is sent when Sam and friends win Pac-Man. We're told [spoiler alert, in case you can't already see the obvious end to this film] that President Cooper brokers a peace treaty with the aliens, but . . . ::shrug:: We never see them in their actual form or anything.
Every beat in Pixels is obvious, every plot point telegraphed. There are no surprises here. The dialogue is campy, sometimes even stilted. And yet. There is something earnest in Sandler's performance that is almost endearing. And any movie that so pleases my kids I just can't think of as all that bad. So I give it a solid 2.5 out of 5.
Directed By: Chris Columbus
Written By: Tim Herlihy, Timothy Dowling (Screenplay); Tim Herlihy (Story); Patrick Jean (Short)
Happy Madison/1492, 2015
PG-13; 105 minutes
2.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
My 5-year-old son has wanted to see this movie since the first time he saw a preview for it. He's talked of almost nothing else. And he loved it.
Which tells you something about the film. It's an uncomplicated bit of nostalgic fluff that lacks depth. Sure, my kids don't have any context for 80's video games, but it hardly mattered. If anything, Pixels made them curious about old arcade games. Now they want to visit a local arcade museum and try playing the cabinet games for themselves. A far cry from iPad and Wii stuff.
There's plenty in the movie that raises questions if anyone happens to think too hard about it. For one, under what circumstances would the people of the United States elect someone like Kevin James president? And why didn't they evacuate New York City when they knew what was coming? Why does Lady Lisa look human when the rest of the video game invaders appear "pixelated" (they're really voxels, but I guess that just didn't have the same ring to it)? And why do all the characters appear to have graduated from—as Cinema Sins would call it—the Prometheus school of running away from things?
Yeah, these issues were obvious enough to distract me from the movie. Or, really, the movie didn't have enough meat on its bones to keep me occupied, so my mind went in desperate search of sustenance. But it was stretched from an earlier short film, so one can't expect a feast when the ingredients were so few.
Pixels begins in 1982, where a younger version of Sandler's character Sam Brenner comes in second to a younger version of Dinklage's Eddie at a video gaming contest. Then flash ahead to modern day and Sam is one of those nerd technicians who install TVs and computers for places like Best Buy. Meanwhile, by some bizarre twist of fate, his best friend Cooper (James) is president. Of, like, the United States. And terrible at it.
Then the aliens arrive. Having intercepted a space capsule sent out in 1982 and misinterpreted the contents, they apparently believe humans wage war via video gaming contests (the capsule included video footage of Sam and Eddie battling it out at the contest). Assuming humans are therefore bloodthirsty, the aliens—who are never given a name—decide to go on the offense and challenge the world by creating giant versions of the 80's games. If they win three, they will destroy Earth. If we win three, they will leave us in peace.
It is, of course, utterly ridiculous. Clearly these aliens have technology that is far beyond ours and could annihilate us without ever bothering with the video game thing. But we get almost no real look at this alien culture except through a "trophy" Q-Bert that is sent when Sam and friends win Pac-Man. We're told [spoiler alert, in case you can't already see the obvious end to this film] that President Cooper brokers a peace treaty with the aliens, but . . . ::shrug:: We never see them in their actual form or anything.
Every beat in Pixels is obvious, every plot point telegraphed. There are no surprises here. The dialogue is campy, sometimes even stilted. And yet. There is something earnest in Sandler's performance that is almost endearing. And any movie that so pleases my kids I just can't think of as all that bad. So I give it a solid 2.5 out of 5.
DFW Writers Convention
I just spent the weekend in Dallas at DFW Con. So many good things. You can read about it over on PepperWords. I'll be adding more to that site, too.
7.20.2015
Lost in Translation
Someone asked me the other day what I think of the differences between originals and remakes when the originals are from one country and the remakes are from another. So I've been trying to sort of think that over, but really, even with my degree, my exposure to these things is limited. Like, I watched neither the original nor the Americanized version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. I always sort of meant to see the Daniel Craig one, but . . . ::shrug::
I suppose I'm more familiar with the television remakes. Like Broadchurch versus Gracepoint. Which were almost exactly the same story but re-imagined for a different sensibility. The problem for me being that I grew up watching British television so I preferred Broadchurch, and anyway, I don't think it translated all that well. I have to wonder whether Chris Chibnall's idea of what is "American" and the actuality were maybe a little too far apart. Or, for all I know FOX insisted on stuff that didn't work. Either way, Gracepoint fell flat and was cancelled while Broadchurch continues on.
Some might say Elementary is an American answer to Sherlock, but they're not at all the same show aside from being set in modern day and sharing source material. I don't think you can compare them 1:1.
America imports a lot of game shows and reality shows, but I don't watch those things. I did enjoy American Idol once upon a time and long ago, but I lost interest somewhere. We had that Weakest Link thing, too, for a bit. But the difference in contestants is pretty telling, don't you think? Americans are so quick to blame anything or anyone but themselves for their mistakes and failures. The worst thing in the world to them is to be sorry or admit a fault. It's just a completely different mindset.
Ah, well, but I'm in no mood for psychology at the moment, much as I love it.
I think about things like the manga I used to read, too . . . I used to have to special order it from a Japanese bookstore, and then when I moved to Boston I was able to go to the bookstore myself. And I would painstakingly translate the manga, or else sometimes I was able to find translations online. But now a lot of it is available in English. Just the other day I found Tokyo Babylon in an English omnibus format. It's weird, though, because I feel like it loses something in translation. There's something (for me anyway) about seeing the kanji there . . . The way they do the lettering for English doesn't look right somehow. I'm not sure I can explain it; the Anglicized manga use standard comic-book style lettering, I guess, but I feel like it should be different, though I'm not sure how.
Translating is more than taking words from one thing and recasting them into another language. There's a whole other level of vocabulary involved, a cultural one. So it takes more than just a translator—that is, someone who speaks two languages; it requires someone who understands the differences between two cultures. A filmmaker who wants to take content from one place and present it to another needs to be able to negotiate the cultural distance between the two.
If you were to, say, translate this blog post through Google or whatever . . . How much of it would make sense in another language? I don't write very formally, and my guess is English is especially difficult to translate because it's so wonky. You could use something like Smartling or whatever, I guess. I dunno. Maybe I'm alienating a big part of my readership because not everyone speaks English. Then again, we English speakers are told most everyone does speak English these days. Is that true? And is "speaking English" the same as really comprehending it?
Geez, I've gone off again.
Sometimes I wonder what will happen if/when my books are translated into other languages. I'll have no way of telling whether my story remains intact! (Well, with the French I will, but everything else is up for grabs.) I guess I should just be excited that the books get translated at all because: wider audience!
Is that how the film and TV people feel when they hear their stuff is getting shipped abroad? Or do they worry over it like anxious parents, afraid others will think their babies are ugly?
I'm not sure I've answered the question the person asked me. What do I think of transplanted shows and movies (and books)? Like anything, when it's done well, it's great. When it's done poorly, it sucks. When you move a plant, you have to be sure of the right soil. You have to prepare the ground, so to speak. I think it's the same for films and TV shows and books. You need the right gardeners to make sure the work blooms.
I suppose I'm more familiar with the television remakes. Like Broadchurch versus Gracepoint. Which were almost exactly the same story but re-imagined for a different sensibility. The problem for me being that I grew up watching British television so I preferred Broadchurch, and anyway, I don't think it translated all that well. I have to wonder whether Chris Chibnall's idea of what is "American" and the actuality were maybe a little too far apart. Or, for all I know FOX insisted on stuff that didn't work. Either way, Gracepoint fell flat and was cancelled while Broadchurch continues on.
Some might say Elementary is an American answer to Sherlock, but they're not at all the same show aside from being set in modern day and sharing source material. I don't think you can compare them 1:1.
America imports a lot of game shows and reality shows, but I don't watch those things. I did enjoy American Idol once upon a time and long ago, but I lost interest somewhere. We had that Weakest Link thing, too, for a bit. But the difference in contestants is pretty telling, don't you think? Americans are so quick to blame anything or anyone but themselves for their mistakes and failures. The worst thing in the world to them is to be sorry or admit a fault. It's just a completely different mindset.
Ah, well, but I'm in no mood for psychology at the moment, much as I love it.
I think about things like the manga I used to read, too . . . I used to have to special order it from a Japanese bookstore, and then when I moved to Boston I was able to go to the bookstore myself. And I would painstakingly translate the manga, or else sometimes I was able to find translations online. But now a lot of it is available in English. Just the other day I found Tokyo Babylon in an English omnibus format. It's weird, though, because I feel like it loses something in translation. There's something (for me anyway) about seeing the kanji there . . . The way they do the lettering for English doesn't look right somehow. I'm not sure I can explain it; the Anglicized manga use standard comic-book style lettering, I guess, but I feel like it should be different, though I'm not sure how.
Translating is more than taking words from one thing and recasting them into another language. There's a whole other level of vocabulary involved, a cultural one. So it takes more than just a translator—that is, someone who speaks two languages; it requires someone who understands the differences between two cultures. A filmmaker who wants to take content from one place and present it to another needs to be able to negotiate the cultural distance between the two.
If you were to, say, translate this blog post through Google or whatever . . . How much of it would make sense in another language? I don't write very formally, and my guess is English is especially difficult to translate because it's so wonky. You could use something like Smartling or whatever, I guess. I dunno. Maybe I'm alienating a big part of my readership because not everyone speaks English. Then again, we English speakers are told most everyone does speak English these days. Is that true? And is "speaking English" the same as really comprehending it?
Geez, I've gone off again.
Sometimes I wonder what will happen if/when my books are translated into other languages. I'll have no way of telling whether my story remains intact! (Well, with the French I will, but everything else is up for grabs.) I guess I should just be excited that the books get translated at all because: wider audience!
Is that how the film and TV people feel when they hear their stuff is getting shipped abroad? Or do they worry over it like anxious parents, afraid others will think their babies are ugly?
I'm not sure I've answered the question the person asked me. What do I think of transplanted shows and movies (and books)? Like anything, when it's done well, it's great. When it's done poorly, it sucks. When you move a plant, you have to be sure of the right soil. You have to prepare the ground, so to speak. I think it's the same for films and TV shows and books. You need the right gardeners to make sure the work blooms.
7.13.2015
Television: Shows I'm Currently Watching
Television seasons are so weird now. Shows start and stop at various times so that schedules are staggered. And then there's all the stuff you can stream whenever you want besides. (I recently finished Parks and Rec that way.)
I find it handy to periodically stop and make a list of shows I'm currently involved with. That is: only shows I'm actively watching at this point in time. Like, I watch Elementary and will continue to watch it, but it's not in season. So it won't be on this list.
Shows that are currently airing that I watch include:
I find it handy to periodically stop and make a list of shows I'm currently involved with. That is: only shows I'm actively watching at this point in time. Like, I watch Elementary and will continue to watch it, but it's not in season. So it won't be on this list.
Shows that are currently airing that I watch include:
- Proof
- Mr. Robot
- Wayward Pines
- Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell
- True Detective
- Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
Clearly I need more comedy in my life. If anyone has suggestions on that front, I'd love to hear them. I do think comedy is harder to do well than drama. Plus, I find most sitcoms get stale quickly. Though I generally enjoy workplace shows like The Office, 30 Rock, Parks and Rec. And then there was also Community. Basically shows in which the ties are not familial.
What I don't watch is reality television. Ugh. No.
Anyone else digging into these summer shows? Or are you just waiting for your fall favorites to come back?
Stitch Fix
I like clothes, and sometimes I even enjoy shopping for them. But while I know what I like, I don't always take a broader view. And sometimes I don't know where to look for things, if that makes any sense. In short: clothes rut. Where everything kind of looks the same because I keep going to the same places again and again.
But then I found Stitch Fix and decided to give it a try. It involved answering a very thorough questionnaire about my lifestyle and habits and clothing preferences. But when my first box of clothes came, having been selected by a stylist assigned to me, I was quite impressed. And that's saying something since I'm very picky about my clothes.
Truth is, Ashley (the stylist) found some real winners, plus she selected stuff I would never have tried on in the store but in the comfort of my home found to be very flattering. In other words, she broke me out of my rut. And I've had multiple compliments on the Stitch Fix outfits.
The other nice thing is that you schedule a shipment for whenever you want one and can put in notes about what you might specifically be looking for. I asked for my next batch to come in early September, in advance of a trip to London later in the month. You keep what you like and send the rest back in a pre-labeled Tyvek baggie. Of course, I kept everything from my first shipment, so . . . And that's the other nice thing: I was given a discount for keeping it all. So even though there was one item I wasn't sure about, it made more sense to keep it than send it back, especially since I loved everything else. (And I've since grown to love that item as well.)
It's not for everyone, but I'd recommend Stitch Fix for friends who, like me, need to diversify their wardrobes. Also people who are just tired of the same old stores. Or maybe even for people who'd rather not go out and shop. I can't promise everyone will hit the jackpot like I did, but it's worth dropping in your quarter and giving it a spin.
But then I found Stitch Fix and decided to give it a try. It involved answering a very thorough questionnaire about my lifestyle and habits and clothing preferences. But when my first box of clothes came, having been selected by a stylist assigned to me, I was quite impressed. And that's saying something since I'm very picky about my clothes.
Truth is, Ashley (the stylist) found some real winners, plus she selected stuff I would never have tried on in the store but in the comfort of my home found to be very flattering. In other words, she broke me out of my rut. And I've had multiple compliments on the Stitch Fix outfits.
The other nice thing is that you schedule a shipment for whenever you want one and can put in notes about what you might specifically be looking for. I asked for my next batch to come in early September, in advance of a trip to London later in the month. You keep what you like and send the rest back in a pre-labeled Tyvek baggie. Of course, I kept everything from my first shipment, so . . . And that's the other nice thing: I was given a discount for keeping it all. So even though there was one item I wasn't sure about, it made more sense to keep it than send it back, especially since I loved everything else. (And I've since grown to love that item as well.)
It's not for everyone, but I'd recommend Stitch Fix for friends who, like me, need to diversify their wardrobes. Also people who are just tired of the same old stores. Or maybe even for people who'd rather not go out and shop. I can't promise everyone will hit the jackpot like I did, but it's worth dropping in your quarter and giving it a spin.
Why Sherlock Holmes?
I answer that question in a guest post on Christine Rains' blog. Go check it out!
7.12.2015
Books: 13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do by Amy Morin
This is one of those common sense books. You know, where you read it and it doesn't tell you anything you wouldn't already know if you just thought about it for a moment. But Morin has thought about it for you, and organized the information into neat checklists and examples, so that's nice.
Here's the list:
For details on these, read the book. But I will call out one thing that struck me. There's a chapter on not giving away your power, but then in the chapter on not focusing on what you can't control there is a header that reads: "Giving Up Control Will Make You Stronger." And yes, I see the difference, but for a second it does feel a bit like conflicting information.
In truth, mentally strong people have enough faith in themselves and their personal power to give up trying to control things they can't. They know how to let go. (Really strong ones even know how to delegate the things they could do themselves because they have learned to pick their battles and prioritize.)
I'll admit, it makes one cringe a bit to read the checklists and realize something like "expecting immediate results" is an issue for you. (Yeah, okay, I'm impatient!) But for people ready and willing to look at themselves in the mirror and admit their flaws, this is a handy book. And it's kind of nice when you can look at a chapter and know that's definitely one area where you're all good. Too, by figuring out how many boxes you tick on any of the lists, you can get a sense of how much or how little a problem affects you. I "scored" relatively low on a number of these, but higher on two or three, so I know to focus my efforts there.
As I said, it's all pretty common sense, but what Morin offers is suggestions of how to rectify these problems should they be ones you struggle with. Along with identifying your problem areas, each chapter offers bullet points on ways to change yourself for the better. Think of it as a book that allows you to self-diagnose and, to an extent, also provides a cure.
**Of course a book should never stand in for professional help if and when needed.**
The reason I picked up this book was because I needed to figure out why I kept losing my motivation and feeling defeated. 13 Things helped me zero in on a couple areas and gave me new ways to think about things so that I don't feel like a failure. Well . . . Okay, change doesn't happen overnight. It takes work to change the way you think and feel. Like building a muscle. Right now I have to actively remind myself to turn my thoughts around, but eventually it will become habit (I hope). And I have this book to thank for giving me those tools.
Here's the list:
- They don't waste time feeling sorry for themselves
- They don't give away their power
- They don't shy away from change
- They don't focus on things they can't control
- They don't worry about pleasing everyone
- They don't fear taking calculated risks
- They don't dwell on the past
- They don't make the same mistakes over and over
- They don't resent other people's success
- They don't give up after the first failure
- They don't fear alone time
- They don't feel the world owes them anything
- They don't expect immediate results
For details on these, read the book. But I will call out one thing that struck me. There's a chapter on not giving away your power, but then in the chapter on not focusing on what you can't control there is a header that reads: "Giving Up Control Will Make You Stronger." And yes, I see the difference, but for a second it does feel a bit like conflicting information.
In truth, mentally strong people have enough faith in themselves and their personal power to give up trying to control things they can't. They know how to let go. (Really strong ones even know how to delegate the things they could do themselves because they have learned to pick their battles and prioritize.)
I'll admit, it makes one cringe a bit to read the checklists and realize something like "expecting immediate results" is an issue for you. (Yeah, okay, I'm impatient!) But for people ready and willing to look at themselves in the mirror and admit their flaws, this is a handy book. And it's kind of nice when you can look at a chapter and know that's definitely one area where you're all good. Too, by figuring out how many boxes you tick on any of the lists, you can get a sense of how much or how little a problem affects you. I "scored" relatively low on a number of these, but higher on two or three, so I know to focus my efforts there.
As I said, it's all pretty common sense, but what Morin offers is suggestions of how to rectify these problems should they be ones you struggle with. Along with identifying your problem areas, each chapter offers bullet points on ways to change yourself for the better. Think of it as a book that allows you to self-diagnose and, to an extent, also provides a cure.
**Of course a book should never stand in for professional help if and when needed.**
The reason I picked up this book was because I needed to figure out why I kept losing my motivation and feeling defeated. 13 Things helped me zero in on a couple areas and gave me new ways to think about things so that I don't feel like a failure. Well . . . Okay, change doesn't happen overnight. It takes work to change the way you think and feel. Like building a muscle. Right now I have to actively remind myself to turn my thoughts around, but eventually it will become habit (I hope). And I have this book to thank for giving me those tools.
7.11.2015
Freebie
In advance of "The Monumental Horror" being released on Tuesday, "The Mystery of the Last Line" is free on Amazon today through Wednesday the 15th. Be sure to pre-order "The Monumental Horror" while you're at it!
7.09.2015
Books: Creativity, Inc. by Ed Catmull
I wouldn't even have known about this book except I turned the TV on one night, and it's perpetually set to PBS, and Ed Catmull was doing an interview/author talk thing. I was immediately pulled in, so then I knew I wanted to read the book. Which is, I suppose, the whole point of the author book talk thing. Call me a sucker.
Still, I enjoyed reading Catmull's insights. For those who don't recognize the name, Ed Catmull is President of Pixar Animation and Disney Animation. It says so right on the cover of the book. But Catmull has been in this for the long haul, way back before Pixar was Pixar. And Creativity, Inc. charts the workflow of Pixar and later Disney.
This is key: Creativity, Inc. is not a history of Pixar. It's not full of juicy tidbits. Well, it is, but not as many as some readers might be looking for. This book is about building, managing, maintaining a creative workforce. Unearthing the hidden problems and solving them. Engaging the employees so they feel they have a stake in what's being done and so are willing to go all in. Setting up processes that don't box people in and therefore block creative thought.
As a writer, a lot of what Catmull discusses hit home for me. I don't work in an office, but my job is a creative one. And I have my own version of what Catmull calls the Braintrust: my writing critique group. Whenever one of us is stuck on a project, it's time to meet and hash and toss ideas. And also as Catmull points out, we have to remember to focus on the problem and the project, not make it personal. Which, because we have genuine affection for one another, we do.
Genuine affection. Can you imagine working in a place where you have genuine affection among employees? Where people love their work? From the outside, Pixar seems like a fantasy. (I know people who work there, and I'll admit to being a wee bit jealous!) But Catmull is quick to point out it isn't perfect. They have their problems and weaknesses. He talks about the need for people to be candid, which can be difficult. Constructive criticism is required in creative work, but sometimes people don't want to hear the bad news, and just as often people are leery of being the messenger.
Really, Creativity, Inc. is a new kind of management book. In the back is a section called "Starting Points" which more or less boils the rest of the book down into choice thoughts. It's kind of a shame because having that section may encourage people to only read those points and never mind the rest—a Cliffs Notes if you will. But I believe there is value in the text itself, in the anecdotes and examples Catmull gives of problems Pixar (and later Disney) has faced and how they solved them. Mistakes they made, too, which is important to note as well: Creativity is messy and never perfect. Mistakes will be made. Instead of playing the blame game, best to focus on fixing what you can and doing better next time. Mistakes are a learning process, a growing pain.
I've often said the three hardest words to say are not "I love you" but "I don't know." For some reason we see that as weakness or failure. So I really like that Catmull points out how important it is to know what you don't know. Basically, to know when to say, "I don't know" and then follow it with, "but I'll find out" or "I'll learn." The minute a person thinks he (or she) knows everything, he becomes closed. And closed people are boring, and often difficult to work with. They get stubborn and set in their ways. Catmull discusses the "beginner's mind" idea of approaching things with an open mind and a willingness to learn, or re-think what has already been learned.
Likewise, I would hope managers or would-be corporate leaders would read this book with an open mind and a willingness to think about ways to implement some of the suggestions.
Still, I enjoyed reading Catmull's insights. For those who don't recognize the name, Ed Catmull is President of Pixar Animation and Disney Animation. It says so right on the cover of the book. But Catmull has been in this for the long haul, way back before Pixar was Pixar. And Creativity, Inc. charts the workflow of Pixar and later Disney.
This is key: Creativity, Inc. is not a history of Pixar. It's not full of juicy tidbits. Well, it is, but not as many as some readers might be looking for. This book is about building, managing, maintaining a creative workforce. Unearthing the hidden problems and solving them. Engaging the employees so they feel they have a stake in what's being done and so are willing to go all in. Setting up processes that don't box people in and therefore block creative thought.
As a writer, a lot of what Catmull discusses hit home for me. I don't work in an office, but my job is a creative one. And I have my own version of what Catmull calls the Braintrust: my writing critique group. Whenever one of us is stuck on a project, it's time to meet and hash and toss ideas. And also as Catmull points out, we have to remember to focus on the problem and the project, not make it personal. Which, because we have genuine affection for one another, we do.
Genuine affection. Can you imagine working in a place where you have genuine affection among employees? Where people love their work? From the outside, Pixar seems like a fantasy. (I know people who work there, and I'll admit to being a wee bit jealous!) But Catmull is quick to point out it isn't perfect. They have their problems and weaknesses. He talks about the need for people to be candid, which can be difficult. Constructive criticism is required in creative work, but sometimes people don't want to hear the bad news, and just as often people are leery of being the messenger.
Really, Creativity, Inc. is a new kind of management book. In the back is a section called "Starting Points" which more or less boils the rest of the book down into choice thoughts. It's kind of a shame because having that section may encourage people to only read those points and never mind the rest—a Cliffs Notes if you will. But I believe there is value in the text itself, in the anecdotes and examples Catmull gives of problems Pixar (and later Disney) has faced and how they solved them. Mistakes they made, too, which is important to note as well: Creativity is messy and never perfect. Mistakes will be made. Instead of playing the blame game, best to focus on fixing what you can and doing better next time. Mistakes are a learning process, a growing pain.
I've often said the three hardest words to say are not "I love you" but "I don't know." For some reason we see that as weakness or failure. So I really like that Catmull points out how important it is to know what you don't know. Basically, to know when to say, "I don't know" and then follow it with, "but I'll find out" or "I'll learn." The minute a person thinks he (or she) knows everything, he becomes closed. And closed people are boring, and often difficult to work with. They get stubborn and set in their ways. Catmull discusses the "beginner's mind" idea of approaching things with an open mind and a willingness to learn, or re-think what has already been learned.
Likewise, I would hope managers or would-be corporate leaders would read this book with an open mind and a willingness to think about ways to implement some of the suggestions.
7.07.2015
Yankee Candle Update
A while back, I bought some new Yankee candles. And while many of them smelled nice in the jar, several have been disappointments when burned in my home office.
For example, Starry Sky is a really nice scent. But even the large jar candle isn't strong enough to fill my relatively small office (even with the door closed). Quiet Sky has a similar issue but does put forth a slightly stronger scent. Hearth smells pretty nice, too, but after prolonged burning simply smells smokey. Which, yeah, is kind of the point, but in short this one isn't so nice when left to accumulate. Lesson: the grey candles have issues.
I was so excited when they had Hydrangea again. Sure, it's not called "Blue Hydrangea" any more, but what difference could that make? A lot, it turns out. Hydrangea smells candy-like rather than floral.
Scents I can recommend include Blue Island Sky and Exotic Bloom.
I've also begun burning tea lights and find I enjoy them quite a lot. While Dune Grass is a bit light on fragrance, most of these provide prolonged scent and burn and all look really pretty in the beveled glass lantern I bought for them. Sandalwood, Frankincense, Spring Days, Honeysuckle . . . I even found some Blue Hydrangea! (Still doesn't smell quite like I remember, though.) One of my favorites is Evening Air.
Black Coconut remains a regular choice for my kitchen, too, as it does a great job of covering cooking smells.
Of course, I can't guarantee you'll be able to find all these scents anyway; the Yankee store nearest me—the only one in miles—is an outlet store that gets all the discontinued scents. So check your local store, outlet, or the online site for availability.
For example, Starry Sky is a really nice scent. But even the large jar candle isn't strong enough to fill my relatively small office (even with the door closed). Quiet Sky has a similar issue but does put forth a slightly stronger scent. Hearth smells pretty nice, too, but after prolonged burning simply smells smokey. Which, yeah, is kind of the point, but in short this one isn't so nice when left to accumulate. Lesson: the grey candles have issues.
I was so excited when they had Hydrangea again. Sure, it's not called "Blue Hydrangea" any more, but what difference could that make? A lot, it turns out. Hydrangea smells candy-like rather than floral.
Scents I can recommend include Blue Island Sky and Exotic Bloom.
I've also begun burning tea lights and find I enjoy them quite a lot. While Dune Grass is a bit light on fragrance, most of these provide prolonged scent and burn and all look really pretty in the beveled glass lantern I bought for them. Sandalwood, Frankincense, Spring Days, Honeysuckle . . . I even found some Blue Hydrangea! (Still doesn't smell quite like I remember, though.) One of my favorites is Evening Air.
Black Coconut remains a regular choice for my kitchen, too, as it does a great job of covering cooking smells.
Of course, I can't guarantee you'll be able to find all these scents anyway; the Yankee store nearest me—the only one in miles—is an outlet store that gets all the discontinued scents. So check your local store, outlet, or the online site for availability.
7.05.2015
Movies: Jurassic World
Starring: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Ty Simpkins, Nick Robinson
Directed By: Colin Trevorrow
Written By: Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver, Colin Trevorrow & Derek Connolloy (screenplay); Rick Jaffa & Amanda Silver (story); predicated on work by Michael Crichton
Universal, 2015
PG-13; 124 minutes
5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Yeah, okay, it's kinda dumb, but not any more dumb than Jurassic Park was 20-something years ago, and it was entertaining and delivered on its promise of being entertaining, so I give it five stars.
In the interest of full disclosure, though, let me state that I am biased. I loved Jurassic Park when it came out; it holds the record for the movie I've seen most times in the cinema during original release. (This was back when movies stayed in the cinema for a lot longer than they do now.) I was that supremely uncool kid who had Jurassic Park t-shirts and hats and buttons and posters and toys. I had a Jurassic Park pillow and blanket and a stuffed velociraptor named Alan. (My youngest son now claims Alan as his own.) I even wrote a really terrible poem to amuse my best friend. In short, you know, I'm sort of biased.
Thing is, I didn't enjoy The Lost World at all and never even bothered with that third movie, so my love for Jurassic Park does have its limits.
But it's pretty clear the goal of Jurassic World is to bring back all the things people loved about Jurassic Park. The story is quite similar, and the film hangs plenty of lampshades, calling out all the things we remember from the first film. So we sit and we watch, and we're plenty aware it's all a bit ridiculous, but we're having fun anyway.
Jurassic World rolls the characters of Ian Malcolm, Alan Grant, and Muldoon into one Owen (Pratt), an ex-military guy hired to work with the velociraptors. He's trained them to respond to his commands and acts as their Alpha. The raptors are named Blue (the Beta), Charlie, Delta, and Echo. (Why Blue instead of Bravo? ::shrug::) Owen understands the dinosaurs and thinks of them not as "assets" (as the park workers call them) but as living creatures that are wild and unpredictable no matter how much training you may give them. And Owen also thinks about the impact of things—animals raised in captivity, what happens if or when they get loose, etc. He warns to no avail.
Meanwhile, Claire (Howard) manages the park. I guess. She's mostly on about the marketing and the bottom line and the need to create bigger and better dinosaurs to keep people coming back. I'm no fan of Bryce Dallas Howard, and we're not meant to like Claire, either, but whatever.
Claire's two nephews have come to visit (here we have the family-members-in-danger, just as Hammond's grandchildren were). And the kids in this movie are just as annoying as they were in Jurassic Park. I don't think the writers know any actual kids; I think they're just going with what they see on Disney or Nick Jr. Zach is a surly teen interested in girls and who makes bad decisions in general, and his little brother Gray is our resident dino expert. Of course Claire is too busy to actually spend any time with these kids, which means they're in the wrong place at the wrong time when the big baddie gets out.
That big bad is Indominus Rex, a genetically created new attraction. Part T-rex, part cuttlefish, part frog, and . . . well, other stuff, this is Claire's big plan to bring more people into the park. But once again the lesson is: Don't mess with nature. It will bite your f***ing head off.
You can probably map where the movie goes from there without me telling you anything more. It's pretty standard, but no less entertaining for all that. Pratt and Howard have zero chemistry, but Neill and Dern hadn't any either, and that's not why any of us are here anyway.
There were numerous problems with the park itself (aside from the dinosaurs getting out, that is). Like, why don't the rides automatically return to base when there's an emergency? Those kids shouldn't have been able to just keep going. And the ride operators should have had a bullhorn—better yet, there should have been a recorded announcement, rather than his having to shout to be heard. Little things like checking the riders' belts before sending them out? Actually, a ride like the gyro should not have gone out without a guide to keep the park patrons from doing anything they shouldn't. I don't know if the people who wrote the movie don't understand theme parks, or if this was meant to underscore how poorly managed the park was. But it seems to me if you have someone like Claire running things . . . Unless the point is she's all about numbers and marketing but can't legitimately run things in a safe way. In which case, why is she the love interest instead of someone who deserves to get eaten?
Despite the flaws (and maybe because they're easy to make fun of), I still enjoyed the movie. Part of the joy, for me, was being able to share this movie with my kids. My oldest son is nine, and to him Jurassic Park is "old." He said as much to me a few weeks ago. But then I was able to take him and his siblings to this one, and have them be wowed. It's wonderful to watch them be as enthusiastic about Jurassic World as I was about Jurassic Park back in the day. And now suddenly I'm cool because I have a bunch of old Jurassic Park stuff still lying around. And because I "raptor." Sure, I'm a nerd. But sometimes being a nerd pays off.
Directed By: Colin Trevorrow
Written By: Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver, Colin Trevorrow & Derek Connolloy (screenplay); Rick Jaffa & Amanda Silver (story); predicated on work by Michael Crichton
Universal, 2015
PG-13; 124 minutes
5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Yeah, okay, it's kinda dumb, but not any more dumb than Jurassic Park was 20-something years ago, and it was entertaining and delivered on its promise of being entertaining, so I give it five stars.
In the interest of full disclosure, though, let me state that I am biased. I loved Jurassic Park when it came out; it holds the record for the movie I've seen most times in the cinema during original release. (This was back when movies stayed in the cinema for a lot longer than they do now.) I was that supremely uncool kid who had Jurassic Park t-shirts and hats and buttons and posters and toys. I had a Jurassic Park pillow and blanket and a stuffed velociraptor named Alan. (My youngest son now claims Alan as his own.) I even wrote a really terrible poem to amuse my best friend. In short, you know, I'm sort of biased.
Thing is, I didn't enjoy The Lost World at all and never even bothered with that third movie, so my love for Jurassic Park does have its limits.
But it's pretty clear the goal of Jurassic World is to bring back all the things people loved about Jurassic Park. The story is quite similar, and the film hangs plenty of lampshades, calling out all the things we remember from the first film. So we sit and we watch, and we're plenty aware it's all a bit ridiculous, but we're having fun anyway.
Jurassic World rolls the characters of Ian Malcolm, Alan Grant, and Muldoon into one Owen (Pratt), an ex-military guy hired to work with the velociraptors. He's trained them to respond to his commands and acts as their Alpha. The raptors are named Blue (the Beta), Charlie, Delta, and Echo. (Why Blue instead of Bravo? ::shrug::) Owen understands the dinosaurs and thinks of them not as "assets" (as the park workers call them) but as living creatures that are wild and unpredictable no matter how much training you may give them. And Owen also thinks about the impact of things—animals raised in captivity, what happens if or when they get loose, etc. He warns to no avail.
Meanwhile, Claire (Howard) manages the park. I guess. She's mostly on about the marketing and the bottom line and the need to create bigger and better dinosaurs to keep people coming back. I'm no fan of Bryce Dallas Howard, and we're not meant to like Claire, either, but whatever.
Claire's two nephews have come to visit (here we have the family-members-in-danger, just as Hammond's grandchildren were). And the kids in this movie are just as annoying as they were in Jurassic Park. I don't think the writers know any actual kids; I think they're just going with what they see on Disney or Nick Jr. Zach is a surly teen interested in girls and who makes bad decisions in general, and his little brother Gray is our resident dino expert. Of course Claire is too busy to actually spend any time with these kids, which means they're in the wrong place at the wrong time when the big baddie gets out.
That big bad is Indominus Rex, a genetically created new attraction. Part T-rex, part cuttlefish, part frog, and . . . well, other stuff, this is Claire's big plan to bring more people into the park. But once again the lesson is: Don't mess with nature. It will bite your f***ing head off.
You can probably map where the movie goes from there without me telling you anything more. It's pretty standard, but no less entertaining for all that. Pratt and Howard have zero chemistry, but Neill and Dern hadn't any either, and that's not why any of us are here anyway.
There were numerous problems with the park itself (aside from the dinosaurs getting out, that is). Like, why don't the rides automatically return to base when there's an emergency? Those kids shouldn't have been able to just keep going. And the ride operators should have had a bullhorn—better yet, there should have been a recorded announcement, rather than his having to shout to be heard. Little things like checking the riders' belts before sending them out? Actually, a ride like the gyro should not have gone out without a guide to keep the park patrons from doing anything they shouldn't. I don't know if the people who wrote the movie don't understand theme parks, or if this was meant to underscore how poorly managed the park was. But it seems to me if you have someone like Claire running things . . . Unless the point is she's all about numbers and marketing but can't legitimately run things in a safe way. In which case, why is she the love interest instead of someone who deserves to get eaten?
Despite the flaws (and maybe because they're easy to make fun of), I still enjoyed the movie. Part of the joy, for me, was being able to share this movie with my kids. My oldest son is nine, and to him Jurassic Park is "old." He said as much to me a few weeks ago. But then I was able to take him and his siblings to this one, and have them be wowed. It's wonderful to watch them be as enthusiastic about Jurassic World as I was about Jurassic Park back in the day. And now suddenly I'm cool because I have a bunch of old Jurassic Park stuff still lying around. And because I "raptor." Sure, I'm a nerd. But sometimes being a nerd pays off.
7.04.2015
7.03.2015
Concerts: Plain White T's and Rob Thomas at Mountain Winery (Saratoga, CA)
This time I wore the stripes.
Mountain Winery in Saratoga, California is one of my favorite venues. You drive up a twisty path and arrive high above everything around you, with breathtaking views. But more than that, it's like being on another planet. And though it's a large enough arena, it feels very intimate.
The Plain White T's opened, none of them wearing plain white t's at all, which I find to be false advertising. Would it be too precious if they did wear them? I don't know. I'm not sure about the politics around naming a band after an item of clothing.
I'll go ahead and admit I don't own any of their albums, though I've enjoyed some of their songs on the radio. Some but not all. In fact, that "Hey There Delilah" song, which is probably still their best known, is one that really irritates me. But I knew there would be no escaping it, and indeed they closed the set with it. I, for one, prefer the more upbeat. "1, 2, 3, 4" is a good one, and "Should've Gone to Bed." In truth, they put on a good show and were working hard for it, too; it's tough to be the opening band. You're almost never the one people came to see, and a lot of seats are usually still empty when you start. Tom Higgenson called people down to dance in front of the stage, hoping to get some energy going, and that helped.
Rob, meantime, put on as good a show as he ever does. This tour has been fraught with acute allergy attacks and—affecting last night's show—band member emergencies that prevented them from playing anything but the single "Trust You" from the forthcoming new album (which Rob says is due to drop in August). That was disappointing, as I was looking forward to the new stuff, but Rob still put on a robust show. He's a fine entertainer, and a large part of that is he genuinely enjoys it but also doesn't take it for granted. It's clear he's grateful for his fans and the opportunity to do what he loves, and it's equally clear there's love and respect between him and his band. That makes him a pleasure to watch and be with for a couple hours.
(I gotta give up for Rob's drummer, too, in particular; Abe kills it.)
Not a lot of change-ups in this show. What I mean is, most things came out sounding more or less like the album versions, only live, and though Rob touched on some Elvis (doing a bit of "That's All Right" coming out of "Getting Late," like usual) and some Steve Miller (skimming "The Joker") he didn't do any one full cover song. He played "Rest Stop" and "3 A.M." and from there stuck to his solo album catalogue. Well, and he played "Smooth" of course. No piano for Rob this show, either.
Still and all, it was a solid outing, and everyone left satisfied, filled up on a great experience.
I've seen Rob perform (solo and with Matchbox Twenty) more times than any other artist, and I've seldom if ever been disappointed. But this particular show—and I think the venue plays a big part here—had particularly good energy. Thanks, as ever, Rob, for another wonderful night.
Mountain Winery in Saratoga, California is one of my favorite venues. You drive up a twisty path and arrive high above everything around you, with breathtaking views. But more than that, it's like being on another planet. And though it's a large enough arena, it feels very intimate.
The Plain White T's opened, none of them wearing plain white t's at all, which I find to be false advertising. Would it be too precious if they did wear them? I don't know. I'm not sure about the politics around naming a band after an item of clothing.
 |
| Not a white tee among them. |
Rob, meantime, put on as good a show as he ever does. This tour has been fraught with acute allergy attacks and—affecting last night's show—band member emergencies that prevented them from playing anything but the single "Trust You" from the forthcoming new album (which Rob says is due to drop in August). That was disappointing, as I was looking forward to the new stuff, but Rob still put on a robust show. He's a fine entertainer, and a large part of that is he genuinely enjoys it but also doesn't take it for granted. It's clear he's grateful for his fans and the opportunity to do what he loves, and it's equally clear there's love and respect between him and his band. That makes him a pleasure to watch and be with for a couple hours.
(I gotta give up for Rob's drummer, too, in particular; Abe kills it.)
Not a lot of change-ups in this show. What I mean is, most things came out sounding more or less like the album versions, only live, and though Rob touched on some Elvis (doing a bit of "That's All Right" coming out of "Getting Late," like usual) and some Steve Miller (skimming "The Joker") he didn't do any one full cover song. He played "Rest Stop" and "3 A.M." and from there stuck to his solo album catalogue. Well, and he played "Smooth" of course. No piano for Rob this show, either.
Still and all, it was a solid outing, and everyone left satisfied, filled up on a great experience.
I've seen Rob perform (solo and with Matchbox Twenty) more times than any other artist, and I've seldom if ever been disappointed. But this particular show—and I think the venue plays a big part here—had particularly good energy. Thanks, as ever, Rob, for another wonderful night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)