I’m afraid I don’t have a proper update for this week, for a couple of reasons. To make sure that you didn’t come here for nothing, though, here’s the trailer for Michael Scorsese’s new film, Shutter Island, based on a novel by Dennis Lehane (of Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone fame). Looks like Scorsese’s love affair with Leo DiCaprio is still ongoing.
I likes me some scary asylum flick.
Remember when I wrote about my reactions to watching Before Sunrise for the first time at the age of thirty-something? Back when I got the film on DVD, there was a special offer for its nine-years-later sequel, Before Sunset, so I got that one too. After disliking the earlier film quite a bit (my reaction was pretty much that of constantly thinking, “Oh, grow up, you two!”, which didn’t make for an enjoyable experience), I’d decided that I wanted to get this over with: watch Before Sunset so I could pass the two DVDs on to someone. I don’t often get rid of DVDs I’ve bought, but shelf space is at a premium as it is. I knew I was unlikely to watch Before Sunrise again, unless I had some way of reverting to the age of 21 without illegal drugs.
Imagine my surprise when I enjoyed Before Sunset. Not just a bit. Not just in comparison with its predecessor. No, I enjoyed Linklater’s follow-up to his Viennese romance much more than any romantic film I’d seen in a long, long time. And what was even more unexpected: the later film has given me an appreciation for Before Sunset – not so much as a film in its own right, but as a chapter in the overall story.
Jesse and Céline, nine years later, are still the same people – but they’ve both left behind the self-involvement their earlier selves had. Yes, they’re still neurotic, yes, they still go on about the same topics, but differently from the earlier film they actually seem to have a life outside the present moment and a focus other than themselves. Céline’s had a string of unfulfilling relationships, Jesse’s got a son and is trapped in a marriage that has pretty much flatlined. Neither is all that original, but the characters and conversations ring true. Yes, they did in the earlier film, but just to the extent that I disliked the characters more for being credible self-centred twenty-somethings who barely see beyond the horizon of their own navels.
One thing I actually liked about the earlier film was the ending: as much as I didn’t particularly enjoy spending time with Jesse and Céline in their early twenties, there had obviously been something between them, so the moment where they have to leave one another – regardless of their promise to meet again, there, six months later – clicked. The way Before Sunset picks up on this is clever, but it tops it with an ending that in terms of tone and characterisation is perfect.
I’m curious whether I’d now see Before Sunrise with different eyes. I don’t think I’d suddenly like it – I still think it’s a difficult film to appreciate unless you respond to, or identify with, the self-involvement of the characters at least to some extent. But I’d find it easier to see the older characters waiting to emerge from their younger selves. And after this film, as perfect as it is as an ending, I wouldn’t mind catching up with the two again, some years into the future. I don’t actually want that to happen, mind you – but the thought that Céline and Jesse are somewhere out there, living their lives, is one that makes me feel strangely better.
Okay, no most beautiful and wonderful things in the world in this entry. Instead I’m posting a quick, cheap link to Something Awful (with the usual warning that their humour can be rather off-colour and definitely NSFW). In a twist on their usual Photoshops veering from clever to tasteless to Eww! and beyond, they’ve got Real Books That Look Like Photoshops!
Here’s a sample:
P.S.: The first entry on page 5 is wrong on so many levels that I may never be able to eat a flan caramel again. Ever.
Okay, this won’t be a proper update. This is just me saying that yes, I’m still around, yes, I’ll still blog. This is just the busiest time in the year, work-wise.
But I’m hoping to write some updates soon, covering some or even all of the following:
Okay, one of those was probably a lie. Guess which one and you’ll get absolutely nothing. Other than my undying admiration and a day’s supply of minutes, free.
Damages sounded so good. It’d had great reviews in the States. It had an interesting cast. It had won all these nominations and awards.
And it was one of the most disappointing series I’ve seen in a long time.
What confuses me is that so many critics and viewers seem to bend over backwards to praise this series. “Riveting”? “Simply extraordinary”? Sure, these are just soundbites, but the longer reviews and especially the nominations (Emmys: Best Dramatic Series)… I just don’t get them.
To begin with, there simply isn’t enough material for a full season. Had this been a six-episode miniseries, it may have been riveting, but as it was in progressed in fits and starts in between long periods of not going anywhere. I wouldn’t mind if the downtime had been used to develop the characters, but with most of them what you know at the end of episode 1 is pretty much what you know by the end of the season. The only difference is one of degree: we’re quickly aware that Patty Hewes (played competently by Glenn Close) is willing to have animals killed to get what she wants, so there simply isn’t that much of a surprise in learning that she’s willing to have people killed. The only characters that truly seem to develop are Ellie (although with her it takes until the last two to three episodes) and the defense attorney Ray Fiske, both of whom have actual character arcs.
The other thing, which is closely related is this: if a series over-relies on twists and turns they pretty much lose all their effectiveness. This happens fairly quickly in Damages; every so often, you’re asked to re-examine a character or a scene and ask yourself, “So, did this really happen as I believe it did?” Which is all fine and dandy, but the problem is that we quickly learn not to trust anything, and at that point I stop being involved. I don’t invest in the characters or in what I’ve seen because chances are things’ll be different one or two episodes down the line. And at that point, nothing that happens in the series matters. Why be surprised at a character turning out to be evil when you knew that you’d be naive to believe that character to be good? If everything twists and turns, everything becomes arbitrary.
Last but definitely not least: very few of the characters were interesting to begin with. Even a static character can be fun to watch, but almost everyone in the series felt generic. There simply wasn’t enough to Glenn Close’s Lady Macbeth-a-like Patty Hewes to make her different from similar manipulative characters. Same goes for Ted Danson’s Arthur Frobisher, one of the main bad guys in the series (although I found his uncanny, involuntary Christopher Walken impersonation at the beginning quite fascinating for an hour or so).
While I’m usually a fan of unconventional chronology in stories, it didn’t help or change much in Damages: it had the effect of making audiences wonder, “Okay, how do we get from point A to point B?” But sadly, the answer to that always seemed to be the same: Patty does something manipulative and underhand. Frobisher’s people do something manipulative and underhand. Ellie falls for it. Rinse and repeat.
So, since I don’t want to go on much longer about why I didn’t like (or didn’t get) Damages, I’ll just ask: is there anyone reading this who can tell me why I missed the point and that the series is actually clever/subversive/exciting in ways that I’ve failed to see? Because I do find it somewhat disconcerting that my opinion on Damages is shared by very few people out there, it seems.
For those following this blog with baited breath (whoever you are, you are weird!), in case you want to know what I’m up to this week – i.e. the reason for my absenteeism – you may want to check out this page. Apart from doing other things, I’m the one editing the little films. Except for the one featuring a fairly famous Scotsman, which should go on later tonight. See you there (if you’re really, really bored and suffering from me withdrawal…).
One of the things that I find nerdishly fascinating about having a blog is this: what sort of search terms do people use to find my blog? Here’s a quick selection of the ones that I found most baffling, amusing or worrying:
“coen brothers communists”: Who’d’ve thunk? I can imagine some rabid right-winger looking for Coen Brothers hate pages and landing on my site. If so, welcome, Aryan brother! Stay around! Did I mention I’m a pinko commie foreigner bastard myself?
“House M.D. board game”: There’s money to be made from this, I’d wager! “Your patient is too heavy for the CT scanner – lose one turn!” “It is not lupus! Go back three squares.”
“not irony”: To which I say, “Hah! And double-hah!”
“rape games for kids”: I don’t even want to know…
“under trampoline”: This one baffles me, I must admit. As does the last one:
“elder panty sniffing”
At least it now has some relevance if someone, heart pounding and palms sweaty, enters “elder panty sniffing” and ends up here…
P.S.: If you google “coen brothers communists”, this is the first picture you get. Creepy, huh?
If you’re not Magenta (or, indeed, magenta – in which case, you’re either an alien or should see a dermatologist), this blog entry isn’t for you. Sorry. (In case you’re confused, read the comments on yesterday’s entry.)
This one is for you, m’dear…
And, of course, a video – just for you!
I’m sure there were blog entries like this one back when Battlestar Galactica season 3 premiered in the States. So, once again, I’m a year or so late with my reactions. Well, you know what? If you’re looking for cutting-edge reviews you’re in the wrong place anyway. Sorry… should’ve told you earlier, I guess.
Together with Firefly, it’s Battlestar Galactica that has revived my interest in sci-fi. After an overdose of bad Star Trek spinoffs, I’d really given up on the genre, but these two series show that there’s interesting stories to be told in outer space. What I like especially about BSG is the ambivalence of its characters – and that has never been as plain to see as at the beginning of season 3. The references to Iraq are obvious – lines about “insurgent uprisings” and “capturing their hearts and minds” are almost a bit too in-your-face – but the interesting thing is that it’s our protagonists who are strapping on bombs, killing the enemy as much as their own people.
And what other series could manage such a sick, compelling “Honey, I’m home!” moment as when Leoben is stabbed through the neck by Starbuck, only to come home a little later, freshly downloaded, telling her that it’s her choice whether she wants to sleep in the bedroom – but either way (nodding towards the Cylon corpse on the floor) she’d be spending the night with him.
I must say I’m even feeling a bit sorry for Gaius. He’s in a situation where he can either do the wrong thing or get a bullet in the head. He’s never been heroic, exactly, but he’s in a place where he’s screwed, no matter what he does. It’ll be interesting to see where the season will take these characters. But I’m sure that wherever we’ll end up, it won’t be predictable.
Okay, time for a short rant. Hey, it means you get a break from me writing gushing love letters to HBO series and mouthing off about films that you’ve either seen yourself or don’t really care about to begin with. (Come to think of it – why are you reading this blog? Chances are I got you to do so by means of emotional blackmail. I’m evil.)
Anyway, here’s my rant. I’ve been working on a project for work for which we solicited short YouTube application videos from people around the world. So far, so good. This afternoon, though, I would gladly have torn YT digital limb from limb. According to human nature, most people are submitting their videos right this fucking minute (I told you it was going to be a rant!), because the deadline is tomorrow. And I have to write back to all of them: “Hi, I received your video, thanks!/Hi, I received your invitation. Where’s your video?/Hi, do you really want to submit that? You might have a better chance posting two minutes of black!” (Okay, I don’t do the latter.)
Okay, rant point no. 1: YouTube has flood control, which means that you can only post four messages and then you have to wait for 10 minutes or so. Not great fun when you’re supposed to be getting back to 50 applicants. However, I get it, YT wants to avoid members getting spammed, and flood control can help with this.
Rant point no. 2, and infinitely greater than the previous one: This afternoon at work, YouTube reacted to 95% of my attempts to send a message by swallowing the said message and pretending I hadn’t written it. No “Your mail has been sent off”. No telltale traces in the “Sent” box. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. It was roughly like writing a letter, shredding it, writing another letter, shredding it, until it’s no longer fun and you’d rather shove your fingertips in the shredder’s slot.
Yes, I know YouTube is a free service. I also know that without it we couldn’t have done any of this. But this is my blog, so I get to stamp my little feet every now and then and run around screaming “YouTube sucks dead giraffes’ genitalia!” Or something.
This rant was brought to you by “Ritalin? We don’t need no stinking Ritalin!”
