Disney's XD network has premiered the first episode of its striking new "TRON Uprising" cartoon online, leading many to wonder about Disney's plans for a third "TRON" movie. It's been about a year and a half since "TRON Legacy," the heavily hyped-up return to the TRON universe, which didn't make as big a splash as the company would have liked, but did drum up a decent profit. Compared to some of Disney's other attempts to start a new action franchise, such as "Prince of Persia" and "John Carter," the numbers for "TRON Legacy" look pretty good in retrospect.
There has been a lot of hinting about another sequel for a while now. "TRON Legacy" set up several possibilities for future storylines, including updates on a few characters like RAM and YORI, who didn't actually appear in the movie. A completed draft of a new script by Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz, who wrote "Legacy," apparently exists, though we don't know much about it. Bruce Boxleitner, who plays the character of TRON himself, has suggested in interviews that a new "TRON" film is only waiting for director Jospeh Kosinski to finish with "Oblivion" for Universal. However, the longer the wait, the more momentum is lost for the potential franchise.
However, right now it's tough to get anything greenlit at Disney. The studio is going through some pretty severe managerial troubles, notably the recent ousting of Walt Disney Studios Chairman Rich Ross over the poor performance of "John Carter." Last summer, there was the long and torturous process of getting the Gore Verbinski and Johnny Depp "Lone Ranger" off the ground, which was only achieved after some significant cost-cutting. Only proven franchise pictures like the "Pirates" sequels and Marvel superhero flicks are guaranteed Disney's attention right now. After the massive opening weekend for "The Avengers," Disney CEO Bob Iger was quick to confirm that an "Avengers 2" was in development.
"TRON," however, is still a risky universe to play in. "Legacy" did not receive great critical notices and only a middling response from audiences. It was clear that the picture had been rushed, that the special effects weren't as good as they could have been, and the script was pretty lacking in some important areas. Moreover, another "TRON" wouldn't come cheap. Sure, the $170 million price tag of "Legacy" looks pretty good next to the $200 million plus that was sunk into "John Carter," but that's still more expensive than "Captain America" or "Thor," or a whole "Muppets" trilogy. It's understandable that Disney is still on the fence.
Besides, I seriously have to question whether another "TRON" with this creative team is something we want. The prospect of "Legacy" was so tantalizing because it promised something exciting and different, but it didn't really deliver. Many fans were hoping for a look at an upgraded, modern-day "TRON" universe. Instead, we just got reinterpreted takes on the same old concepts from 1982, set to a killer Daft Punk soundtrack. There's the sense that the first-time director and the duo of television writers cutting their teeth on their first feature were too experienced for a project this size, but surely they'll do better the next time around, right?
I'm pretty doubtful, honestly. Kitsis and Horowitz really added nothing to the "TRON" universe, and the more I see of their television work, the more I think the next movie should be scripted by someone with stronger action chops and a more ambitious sense of scope. I'm honestly a little mystified that they haven't been replaced by now. Kosinski at least managed to come up with some interesting visuals, but unless he figures out how to do something more with them than what he showed us in "Legacy," maybe it's time to give someone else a shot in the director's chair too. Then again, I'm curious to see what he's going to do with "Oblivion," his sophomore effort.
Like most other fans, I want the "TRON" franchise to continue. I still think it has the potential for greatness, beyond what the original film accomplished, and it could make Disney plenty of box office bank too. However, looking at what another potential sequel has to work with, and who's involved, and the likelihood of more cost-cutting, more accelerated production schedules, and more managerial drama, it's hard to see how the next "TRON" wouldn't fall prey to the same problems that "Legacy" did if it were greenlit tomorrow.
So right now, I'm just going to enjoy the "TRON" cartoon and try not to get too caught up in any of this. If the new movie happens, it might be good and it might not be. If it doesn't maybe there will be other, better opportunities. As the Zen master says, "We'll see."
---
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Monday, May 14, 2012
It's Upfront Week
It's upfront week, that time of year when the major broadcast television networks announce their schedules for the fall, and decide which shows are being renewed, which are being cancelled, and which new pilots are being picked up to be turned into series. They're called upfronts, because the the presentations are meant to coax advertisers into buying ad space up front, before the next television season begins in the fall. Most of the big announcement have already been made or leaked, though the networks follow a set order for official presentations: NBC announced their schedule yesterday, and it's FOX's turn today.
However, there are usually a couple of surprises every year. For instance, NBC has cancelled "Harry's Law," the David E. Kelley legal drama starring Kathy Bates, which was one of its better performing shows in spite of an older-skewing audience. Three of NBC's critically lauded, but poorly-performing comedies, "30 Rock," and "Community," are only getting half season orders of 13 episodes apiece. The long term prospects do not look good for "Community," which is being moved to Friday nights, where network shows are usually sent to expire, with "Whitney" as a lead-in. Then again, I don't know that it would fare any better staying on Thursdays, where "Glee" is being transplanted next year.
This is also when we hear about cast and format changes for existing shows. Renewals are often dependent on contracts being ironed out with all the talent involved in advance. So, upfronts are also when we learn the outcome of many people's negotiations, like three major cast members of "The Office" signing new deals to keep the show going, in spite of the fact that several others are leaving for their own projects. After a disappointing first season, the American "X-Factor" is bringing on Demi Lovato and Britney Spears as new judges. Meanwhile, Sarah Jessica Parker and Kate Hudson are going to be guest-starring on "Glee" next year.
And just as we're saying goodbye to shows like "Desperate Housewives," "One Tree Hill," and "House," there are lots and lots of potential replacements in the pipeline. We have some interesting titles in the mix this year. NBC has "Revolution," a J.J. Abrams post-apocalyptic science fiction series, "1600 Penn," which will have Bill Pullman playing the president in a White House sitcom, and a Hannibal Lecter origin story. FOX has Mindy Kaling's "The Mindy Project," and ABC has the country music themed "Nashville" soap. The CW has "Sex and the City" prequel "The Carrie Diaries," and the DC superhero Green Arrow headlining "Arrow." CBS is going to try their own take on a modern Sherlock Holmes with "Elementary," starring Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu. Expect preview clips for most of these to be on the internet by the end of the week.
Meanwhile, formerly hot prospects like the "Hunger Games"-esque "The Selection," and the new "Munsters" series I was railing about a few months ago, have quietly been delayed or axed. And remember the dueling "Beauty and the Beast" shows? The CW one "Beauty," has been picked up, but rumor has it that the ABC version is kaput. We'll find out for sure tomorrow when ABC's schedule is announced. We can also say our final goodbyes to heaps of last year's ambitious newcomers like "Terra Nova," "The Playboy Club," "Pan Am," "A Gifted Man," "Unforgettable," "Charlie's Angels," "The River," "Awake," "Alcatraz," "The Finder, " "Ringer," "Prime Suspect," and "The Secret Circle." And say goodbye to "CSI: Miami" too, which has been cancelled after ten seasons.
What about the cable channels, you might ask? Being less advertiser dependent, they place less emphasis on these events, but have their own presentations that generally take place earlier in the spring. AMC, for instance, has already announced its new pilot pickups. However much the press lavishes attention on a small group of high profile cable shows, it's important to remember that the vast majority of audiences are still watching broadcast television, and what's getting airtime on ABC or CBS has a huge influence on everything else in the TV landscape.
It's several months before the premieres in the fall, but analyzing the preview that the upfronts afford us, you can already see the trends and tactics. NBC is trying a big overhaul, putting comedies on four different nights. FOX is standing firm, with the fewest new shows, preferring to retool what it already has. Over the next few days we'll see what CBS and ABC are up to, but it already looks like it's going to be another interesting season.
Happy watching
---
However, there are usually a couple of surprises every year. For instance, NBC has cancelled "Harry's Law," the David E. Kelley legal drama starring Kathy Bates, which was one of its better performing shows in spite of an older-skewing audience. Three of NBC's critically lauded, but poorly-performing comedies, "30 Rock," and "Community," are only getting half season orders of 13 episodes apiece. The long term prospects do not look good for "Community," which is being moved to Friday nights, where network shows are usually sent to expire, with "Whitney" as a lead-in. Then again, I don't know that it would fare any better staying on Thursdays, where "Glee" is being transplanted next year.
This is also when we hear about cast and format changes for existing shows. Renewals are often dependent on contracts being ironed out with all the talent involved in advance. So, upfronts are also when we learn the outcome of many people's negotiations, like three major cast members of "The Office" signing new deals to keep the show going, in spite of the fact that several others are leaving for their own projects. After a disappointing first season, the American "X-Factor" is bringing on Demi Lovato and Britney Spears as new judges. Meanwhile, Sarah Jessica Parker and Kate Hudson are going to be guest-starring on "Glee" next year.
And just as we're saying goodbye to shows like "Desperate Housewives," "One Tree Hill," and "House," there are lots and lots of potential replacements in the pipeline. We have some interesting titles in the mix this year. NBC has "Revolution," a J.J. Abrams post-apocalyptic science fiction series, "1600 Penn," which will have Bill Pullman playing the president in a White House sitcom, and a Hannibal Lecter origin story. FOX has Mindy Kaling's "The Mindy Project," and ABC has the country music themed "Nashville" soap. The CW has "Sex and the City" prequel "The Carrie Diaries," and the DC superhero Green Arrow headlining "Arrow." CBS is going to try their own take on a modern Sherlock Holmes with "Elementary," starring Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu. Expect preview clips for most of these to be on the internet by the end of the week.
Meanwhile, formerly hot prospects like the "Hunger Games"-esque "The Selection," and the new "Munsters" series I was railing about a few months ago, have quietly been delayed or axed. And remember the dueling "Beauty and the Beast" shows? The CW one "Beauty," has been picked up, but rumor has it that the ABC version is kaput. We'll find out for sure tomorrow when ABC's schedule is announced. We can also say our final goodbyes to heaps of last year's ambitious newcomers like "Terra Nova," "The Playboy Club," "Pan Am," "A Gifted Man," "Unforgettable," "Charlie's Angels," "The River," "Awake," "Alcatraz," "The Finder, " "Ringer," "Prime Suspect," and "The Secret Circle." And say goodbye to "CSI: Miami" too, which has been cancelled after ten seasons.
What about the cable channels, you might ask? Being less advertiser dependent, they place less emphasis on these events, but have their own presentations that generally take place earlier in the spring. AMC, for instance, has already announced its new pilot pickups. However much the press lavishes attention on a small group of high profile cable shows, it's important to remember that the vast majority of audiences are still watching broadcast television, and what's getting airtime on ABC or CBS has a huge influence on everything else in the TV landscape.
It's several months before the premieres in the fall, but analyzing the preview that the upfronts afford us, you can already see the trends and tactics. NBC is trying a big overhaul, putting comedies on four different nights. FOX is standing firm, with the fewest new shows, preferring to retool what it already has. Over the next few days we'll see what CBS and ABC are up to, but it already looks like it's going to be another interesting season.
Happy watching
---
Saturday, May 12, 2012
What Impresses About "Chronicle"
When young artists and filmmakers are first starting out, particularly those who want to work in special effects, you tend to get a few who will obsess about equipment and software packages, having gotten the idea that they need top-of-the-line tools to produce really impressive, feature quality work. And as we've seen proven time and time again, it's not the sophistication of the technology that matters, but how you use it. Take the case of "Chronicle," a science-fiction movie presented in the found footage style. It was made on a measly $15 million budget, stars no actors of note, and none of the movie's many, many special effects are particularly impressive by themselves. However, the way they're incorporated into the film, and the way they're used to further the storytelling helps to make "Chronicle" one of the most visually impressive science-fiction films I've seen in a while.
The premise is deceptively simple. Three Seattle area high school seniors, troubled Andrew (Dane DeHaan), his cousin Matt (Alex Russell), and popular quarterback Steve (Michael B. Jordan), discover a hole in the ground in the nearby woods. They explore the cavernous interior, have an encounter with a mysterious pulsating object, and emerge with telekinetic powers, the ability to move things by will alone. At first they use the new abilities as you'd expect high school kids would, to pull harmless pranks and to one-up each other with various stunts. But as they find new ways to exploit their new powers and as they keep getting stronger, their behavior gets riskier. Andrew, our cameraman, is especially keen on finding ways to use his powers to help improve his miserable home and school life. He's bullied at school, his mother (Bo Petersen) is dying from cancer, and his alcoholic father (Michael Kelly) takes out his frustrations on Andrew.
Found footage films have certain limitations, and one of "Chronicle's" best tricks is that Andrew learns how to use his telekinesis to operate his camera, so it can capture the action from all sorts of different angles and Andrew can frequently be in the frame. On one level, you know it's really just a separate camera operator, but in the context of the movie, the filmmakers create the wonderful image of Andrew's camera hovering beside him or above him, following wherever he goes like a faithful dog. You only see the visual effect of the levitating camera once or twice, but it's enough to impart the mental image of one existing in every subsequent scene. It's an extremely clever narrative trick, and gives you a good idea of the director Josh Trank' s inventiveness. He manages to pull off some huge, amazing set-pieces with very limited means. Some of the effects, particularly the CGI animation, is pretty rough, but it's used so well that the imperfections have negligible impact.
What impressed me more than the effects, though, was the script by Max Landis, based on a story by Landis and Trank. At first the main characters seem like such tropes - the bullied loser, the pseudo-intellectual, and the most popular kid in school. And then you get to see the relationships among them develop, and the way they behave and interact is often painfully genuine. It's easy to get invested in the boys' friendships. "Chronicle" is an action picture, but it's a character study first and foremost. At the risk of giving too much away, the film I think it's closest to spiritually is Brian DePalma's "Carrie," rather than the more superficially similar "Akira." The writing also does a great job of incorporating the found footage conceit. The camera is not only acknowledged in the film repeatedly, but becomes a point of contention in several scenes, and Andrew's insistence on bringing it everywhere is a signal of his mental distress.
"Chronicle" doesn't follow the strict rules of found footage, being stitched together from the product of several different cameras, including video from Matt's blogger love interest Casey (Ashley Hinshaw) and various surveillance cameras. To the filmmakers' credit, they're far more committed to the concept than most of traditional found footage films I've seen. When the continuous filming gets particularly far-fetched, they'll always have a moment or two to acknowledge or explain how we're seeing the shots that we're seeing. It keeps finding so many ways to circumvent or overcome the limitations, that on a technical level alone this is easily the best found footage film I've ever seen. Add the great use of effects, the surprisingly strong story, and a couple of solid performances, and "Chronicle" is a downright impressive movie, found footage or otherwise.
---
The premise is deceptively simple. Three Seattle area high school seniors, troubled Andrew (Dane DeHaan), his cousin Matt (Alex Russell), and popular quarterback Steve (Michael B. Jordan), discover a hole in the ground in the nearby woods. They explore the cavernous interior, have an encounter with a mysterious pulsating object, and emerge with telekinetic powers, the ability to move things by will alone. At first they use the new abilities as you'd expect high school kids would, to pull harmless pranks and to one-up each other with various stunts. But as they find new ways to exploit their new powers and as they keep getting stronger, their behavior gets riskier. Andrew, our cameraman, is especially keen on finding ways to use his powers to help improve his miserable home and school life. He's bullied at school, his mother (Bo Petersen) is dying from cancer, and his alcoholic father (Michael Kelly) takes out his frustrations on Andrew.
Found footage films have certain limitations, and one of "Chronicle's" best tricks is that Andrew learns how to use his telekinesis to operate his camera, so it can capture the action from all sorts of different angles and Andrew can frequently be in the frame. On one level, you know it's really just a separate camera operator, but in the context of the movie, the filmmakers create the wonderful image of Andrew's camera hovering beside him or above him, following wherever he goes like a faithful dog. You only see the visual effect of the levitating camera once or twice, but it's enough to impart the mental image of one existing in every subsequent scene. It's an extremely clever narrative trick, and gives you a good idea of the director Josh Trank' s inventiveness. He manages to pull off some huge, amazing set-pieces with very limited means. Some of the effects, particularly the CGI animation, is pretty rough, but it's used so well that the imperfections have negligible impact.
What impressed me more than the effects, though, was the script by Max Landis, based on a story by Landis and Trank. At first the main characters seem like such tropes - the bullied loser, the pseudo-intellectual, and the most popular kid in school. And then you get to see the relationships among them develop, and the way they behave and interact is often painfully genuine. It's easy to get invested in the boys' friendships. "Chronicle" is an action picture, but it's a character study first and foremost. At the risk of giving too much away, the film I think it's closest to spiritually is Brian DePalma's "Carrie," rather than the more superficially similar "Akira." The writing also does a great job of incorporating the found footage conceit. The camera is not only acknowledged in the film repeatedly, but becomes a point of contention in several scenes, and Andrew's insistence on bringing it everywhere is a signal of his mental distress.
"Chronicle" doesn't follow the strict rules of found footage, being stitched together from the product of several different cameras, including video from Matt's blogger love interest Casey (Ashley Hinshaw) and various surveillance cameras. To the filmmakers' credit, they're far more committed to the concept than most of traditional found footage films I've seen. When the continuous filming gets particularly far-fetched, they'll always have a moment or two to acknowledge or explain how we're seeing the shots that we're seeing. It keeps finding so many ways to circumvent or overcome the limitations, that on a technical level alone this is easily the best found footage film I've ever seen. Add the great use of effects, the surprisingly strong story, and a couple of solid performances, and "Chronicle" is a downright impressive movie, found footage or otherwise.
---
Friday, May 11, 2012
My Favorite Tim Burton Film
Writing about "Edward Scissorhands" for this blog was inevitable, as it was one of the movies that I became briefly, but overwhelmingly obsessed with as a teenager. I didn't see it in theaters in 1990, but several years later on television. It was not my first exposure to the work of Tim Burton, who I knew from "Beetlejuice" and "The Nightmare Before Christmas." I was familiar with his monochrome circus imagery and his pale, odd heroes who never slept well, judging from the dark circles under their eyes. Some of them had the excuse of being dead, but others were just different, which was arguably worse. So Burton was a favorite among artsy weirdos and alienated loser kids in the early 90s, when the term "emo" just referred to a music sub-genre, and anything with a whiff of the occult was still treated as something unseemly, practically unhygienic.
Over the years, Burton's work has become more conventional, though it had always been very commercial from the start - this was the man responsible for the 1989 "Batman," remember - and in recent years it's become fashionable to mock him as a sell-out regurgitator of his earlier, more beloved films. I don't think this is true. Burton just got older and found more success, so his perspective and outlook on the world changed. It happens to almost everyone. And It's harder to make films about the loneliness and alienation of adolescence, a major theme in most of his early work, the further and further away you are from the reality of it. "Edward Scissorhands" is one of those films that is best enjoyed when you are a teenager, a fable about horror movie monsters and suburban wonderlands that is much too obvious and hits a lot of wrong notes. But it is so earnestly, emotionally genuine, and hits most of the right ones too.
Maybe "Edward Scissorhands" would be better regarded if it was a straight comedy, like "Beetlejuice." It seems to start out this way, with an Avon lady named Peg (Diane Wiest), a resident of a pastel-hued, 60s-kitsch-slathered neighborhood paying a call to a huge Gothic castle that towers over the rest of this little universe on a gloom-enshrouded mountain peak. She finds a young man living there alone, who calls himself Edward, and has sharp shears in the place of hands. Edward, though he looks like an 80s slasher psycho, is an utterly guileless innocent. His "father," played in flashbacks by Vincent Price, is long dead. What can the warm-hearted Peg do, but bundle Edward into her car, and take him home with her? Soon Edward is using his unique talents to clip hedges, groom dogs, and trim hair for the neighborhood ladies, and seems well on his way to becoming a productive member of the community. And then he makes the mistake of falling for Peg's daughter Kim (Winona Ryder), who already has a thuggish boyfriend (Anthony Michael Hall).
What strikes me now about "Edward Scissorhands" is how unreal it is on the surface level. The whole film feels constructed from disparate pieces. The neighborhood is a cartoon version of Burton's own childhood memories of the 60s, with the bizarre neighbors and the garish decor. And then you have Edward's home, which is straight out of the stately old black-and-white Hammer horror movies that Vincent Price used to headline. The narrative is equal parts "Frankenstein" and fairy-tale, except when Edward is making himself useful in the neighborhood, a string of macabre comic set pieces that I appreciate a little more each time I see them. The film hinges on Burton's visual sense, his ability to translate all these bizarre concepts and ideas into coherent film images, and then mix and juxtapose them for maximum impact. Now that I'm older it's clear that he was not only poking fun at the ticky-tacky sameness of suburbia, but the grandiosity of Gothic horror too. The opening title sequence gives us a look at the workings of a mechanical monstrosity of groaning iron gears - that makes dainty sugar cookies.
Now where I depart from most critics is the melodramatic parts of the film. Burton goes for tears and transcendence in the flashbacks with Vincent Price and the romantic moments, particularly the snow dance sequences. Many found these too maudlin and underdeveloped. I never bought into the romance myself, as Winona Ryder is really pretty terrible as Kim, not that she had much of a character to work with. The action climax in the last act, where "Edward Scissorhands" briefly turns into the horror movie it was doing such a good job of not being, feels out of place. Nonetheless, Burton's spectacular imagery wins the day in the end. I remember welling up during the last flashback sequence with the Inventor's last moments, and being absolutely transfixed by the final scenes of snowfall. With a big assist by one of Danny Elfman's most unsubtle, choral-heavy scores, that you can bet I know every note of after countless repetitions, the melodrama was the reason I loved the movie so unreservedly. How often do you see emotions that big on the screen anymore?
And then there was Johnny Depp. This was the first of his collaborations with Tim Burton, and the first movie role he got any serious attention for. Up until that point he had been a fairly successful TV teen idol, but clearly busting to do more. "Edward Scissorhands" proved he could be a star, that he had the acting chops to play wildly unconventional characters, long before he was Captain Jack Sparrow. Most of his performance as Edward is silent, and heavily reliant on physical comedy and pantomime. The visual design of the character is iconic, and perfectly realized, but it is impossible to think of Edward without the petrified, awkward stiffness, the childish eagerness to please, and the aching melancholy. That was all Depp. And it's what spurred my high school self to develop a monster crush on the actor, and watch everything in his filmography I could get my hands on. After the early exposure to Jim Jarmusch, Lasse Hallstom, and Terry Gilliam films, I regret nothing.
I think Tim Burton's best film to date is "Ed Wood," but I can't deny that "Edward Scissorhands" remains my favorite. It's more nostalgia than anything else, admittedly, but that was one of the first times I really got excited bout a film and everything associated with it. "Edward Scissorhands" helped make me the movie geek I am today. And it's why I still watch every Johnny Depp movie, and every Tim Burton movie - he's one of the few directors whose filmographies I've actually finished. You can expect a "Dark Shadows" review here eventually, good or bad.
Sometimes it's just nice feeling like a teenager again.
---
Over the years, Burton's work has become more conventional, though it had always been very commercial from the start - this was the man responsible for the 1989 "Batman," remember - and in recent years it's become fashionable to mock him as a sell-out regurgitator of his earlier, more beloved films. I don't think this is true. Burton just got older and found more success, so his perspective and outlook on the world changed. It happens to almost everyone. And It's harder to make films about the loneliness and alienation of adolescence, a major theme in most of his early work, the further and further away you are from the reality of it. "Edward Scissorhands" is one of those films that is best enjoyed when you are a teenager, a fable about horror movie monsters and suburban wonderlands that is much too obvious and hits a lot of wrong notes. But it is so earnestly, emotionally genuine, and hits most of the right ones too.
Maybe "Edward Scissorhands" would be better regarded if it was a straight comedy, like "Beetlejuice." It seems to start out this way, with an Avon lady named Peg (Diane Wiest), a resident of a pastel-hued, 60s-kitsch-slathered neighborhood paying a call to a huge Gothic castle that towers over the rest of this little universe on a gloom-enshrouded mountain peak. She finds a young man living there alone, who calls himself Edward, and has sharp shears in the place of hands. Edward, though he looks like an 80s slasher psycho, is an utterly guileless innocent. His "father," played in flashbacks by Vincent Price, is long dead. What can the warm-hearted Peg do, but bundle Edward into her car, and take him home with her? Soon Edward is using his unique talents to clip hedges, groom dogs, and trim hair for the neighborhood ladies, and seems well on his way to becoming a productive member of the community. And then he makes the mistake of falling for Peg's daughter Kim (Winona Ryder), who already has a thuggish boyfriend (Anthony Michael Hall).
What strikes me now about "Edward Scissorhands" is how unreal it is on the surface level. The whole film feels constructed from disparate pieces. The neighborhood is a cartoon version of Burton's own childhood memories of the 60s, with the bizarre neighbors and the garish decor. And then you have Edward's home, which is straight out of the stately old black-and-white Hammer horror movies that Vincent Price used to headline. The narrative is equal parts "Frankenstein" and fairy-tale, except when Edward is making himself useful in the neighborhood, a string of macabre comic set pieces that I appreciate a little more each time I see them. The film hinges on Burton's visual sense, his ability to translate all these bizarre concepts and ideas into coherent film images, and then mix and juxtapose them for maximum impact. Now that I'm older it's clear that he was not only poking fun at the ticky-tacky sameness of suburbia, but the grandiosity of Gothic horror too. The opening title sequence gives us a look at the workings of a mechanical monstrosity of groaning iron gears - that makes dainty sugar cookies.
Now where I depart from most critics is the melodramatic parts of the film. Burton goes for tears and transcendence in the flashbacks with Vincent Price and the romantic moments, particularly the snow dance sequences. Many found these too maudlin and underdeveloped. I never bought into the romance myself, as Winona Ryder is really pretty terrible as Kim, not that she had much of a character to work with. The action climax in the last act, where "Edward Scissorhands" briefly turns into the horror movie it was doing such a good job of not being, feels out of place. Nonetheless, Burton's spectacular imagery wins the day in the end. I remember welling up during the last flashback sequence with the Inventor's last moments, and being absolutely transfixed by the final scenes of snowfall. With a big assist by one of Danny Elfman's most unsubtle, choral-heavy scores, that you can bet I know every note of after countless repetitions, the melodrama was the reason I loved the movie so unreservedly. How often do you see emotions that big on the screen anymore?
And then there was Johnny Depp. This was the first of his collaborations with Tim Burton, and the first movie role he got any serious attention for. Up until that point he had been a fairly successful TV teen idol, but clearly busting to do more. "Edward Scissorhands" proved he could be a star, that he had the acting chops to play wildly unconventional characters, long before he was Captain Jack Sparrow. Most of his performance as Edward is silent, and heavily reliant on physical comedy and pantomime. The visual design of the character is iconic, and perfectly realized, but it is impossible to think of Edward without the petrified, awkward stiffness, the childish eagerness to please, and the aching melancholy. That was all Depp. And it's what spurred my high school self to develop a monster crush on the actor, and watch everything in his filmography I could get my hands on. After the early exposure to Jim Jarmusch, Lasse Hallstom, and Terry Gilliam films, I regret nothing.
I think Tim Burton's best film to date is "Ed Wood," but I can't deny that "Edward Scissorhands" remains my favorite. It's more nostalgia than anything else, admittedly, but that was one of the first times I really got excited bout a film and everything associated with it. "Edward Scissorhands" helped make me the movie geek I am today. And it's why I still watch every Johnny Depp movie, and every Tim Burton movie - he's one of the few directors whose filmographies I've actually finished. You can expect a "Dark Shadows" review here eventually, good or bad.
Sometimes it's just nice feeling like a teenager again.
---
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Starting "The Sopranos"
After some considerable delay, I've started watching "The Sopranos," one of the key turn-of-the-century series that finally got everyone to start taking television seriously. This was the one that raised the bar, a show that could be called feature quality, but told stories in a way that only episodic television could. "The Sopranos" has become a cultural touchstone to such an extent, referenced and held up as a shining example of great television so often, I know my expectations are probably going to hamper my viewing experience, not to mention that I already know all about three of the series' major deaths and the final scene of the final episode that has been analyzed to death. I was never planning to watch the show until recently, so I never took precautions against spoilers. Now, I'm a little sorry I didn't.
But let's start at the beginning. "The Sopranos" is about an Italian mob boss named Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini), who is based out of New Jersey and forced to see a therapist, Dr. Melfi (Lorraine Bracco), after suffering anxiety attacks and blackouts. The trouble is his family, both the nuclear one and the larger organized crime family that he controls. Tony's wife Carmela (Edie Falco) is clashing with teenage daughter Meadow (Jamie-Lynn Sigler). His mother Livia (Nancy Marchand) can no longer live unassisted, but has become so paranoid and contrarian, she won't come to a birthday party for Anthony Jr (Robert Iler) unescorted. Meanwhile Tony's nephew Christopher (Michael Imperioli) and elderly Uncle Junior (Dominic Chianese) both jostle for power they feel entitled to. I remember the print ads from that first season of "The Sopranos," with both of Tony's families lined up on either side of him, with the tagline being some variant of "if one family doesn't kill him, the other one will."
Of course, it's the interplay of both sides that are going to keep Tony Soprano's life interesting. I expect that subsequent seasons are going to turn darker and more psychologically fraught, but right now I'm enjoying the relative lightness of the early episodes, where just as much time is spent in Dr. Melfi's office or with the Soprano kids as with Tony's inner circle of loyal lieutenants, Silvio Dante (Steven Van Zandt), Paulie Walnuts (Tony Sirico), and Big Pussy (Vincent Pastore). There's a tongue-in-cheek playfulness to Sil's "Godfather" impressions and Carmela bringing out the literal big guns to confront a possible home invader. These are characters who have seen all the gangster movies that everyone else has over the years, and are aware of its absurdities. Some have bought into the mythos, romanticized it, and enshrined it as an ideal. We hear constant complaints about the current state of organized crime in the post John Gotti age.
However, the focus of the series will be the development of Tony Soprano, who has long been cited as one of the most iconic and influential modern anti-heroes, a man of questionable morality clinging to outdated conceptions of masculinity and power. He is not comfortable talking about his feelings. He is not good in situations that don’t conform to his fairly narrow existing worldview. Tony claims his reputation as a mobster depends on him not appearing weak, and swears Carmela to secrecy about his therapy sessions, but the truth is that he’s embarrassed that he’s fallen victim to an ailment he views as undignified. His discomfort is very endearing. Of course, this is no lovable schlub on a CBS sitcom, but a man who has the means to deal out violence and death as he finds necessary. Tony is good-natured and easy to identify with, but there’s clearly another side to him that hasn’t come out yet.
I look forward to getting to know him and the rest of the “Sopranos” crew. I’m firmly on board with the story and the characters. However, more than a decade of increasing quality across a broad spectrum of television dramas means that the high production values of “The Sopranos” aren’t as impressive as they probably were back when the show premiered on HBO in 1999. Yes, it does hold up very well, probably better than a lot of movies from the same time period, but I can’t help noticing little things like the pedestrian opening sequence and the odd artificiality of Dr. Melfi’s office. The show’s aesthetic is a bit uneven at this point, but I’m assuming these minor bumps are going to be ironed out over time.
There’s no mystery why “The Sopranos” is so beloved, but after only a handful of episodes it’s far too early for me to say whether it’s really up there with the best television shows of all time. Still, I’m having fun picking out all the elements that it seems like every other crime series has copied or paid homage to, and I’m fairly sure many of my favorites like “Breaking Bad” and “Dexter” wouldn’t be here without “The Sopranos.” Things are looking good so far.
---
But let's start at the beginning. "The Sopranos" is about an Italian mob boss named Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini), who is based out of New Jersey and forced to see a therapist, Dr. Melfi (Lorraine Bracco), after suffering anxiety attacks and blackouts. The trouble is his family, both the nuclear one and the larger organized crime family that he controls. Tony's wife Carmela (Edie Falco) is clashing with teenage daughter Meadow (Jamie-Lynn Sigler). His mother Livia (Nancy Marchand) can no longer live unassisted, but has become so paranoid and contrarian, she won't come to a birthday party for Anthony Jr (Robert Iler) unescorted. Meanwhile Tony's nephew Christopher (Michael Imperioli) and elderly Uncle Junior (Dominic Chianese) both jostle for power they feel entitled to. I remember the print ads from that first season of "The Sopranos," with both of Tony's families lined up on either side of him, with the tagline being some variant of "if one family doesn't kill him, the other one will."
Of course, it's the interplay of both sides that are going to keep Tony Soprano's life interesting. I expect that subsequent seasons are going to turn darker and more psychologically fraught, but right now I'm enjoying the relative lightness of the early episodes, where just as much time is spent in Dr. Melfi's office or with the Soprano kids as with Tony's inner circle of loyal lieutenants, Silvio Dante (Steven Van Zandt), Paulie Walnuts (Tony Sirico), and Big Pussy (Vincent Pastore). There's a tongue-in-cheek playfulness to Sil's "Godfather" impressions and Carmela bringing out the literal big guns to confront a possible home invader. These are characters who have seen all the gangster movies that everyone else has over the years, and are aware of its absurdities. Some have bought into the mythos, romanticized it, and enshrined it as an ideal. We hear constant complaints about the current state of organized crime in the post John Gotti age.
However, the focus of the series will be the development of Tony Soprano, who has long been cited as one of the most iconic and influential modern anti-heroes, a man of questionable morality clinging to outdated conceptions of masculinity and power. He is not comfortable talking about his feelings. He is not good in situations that don’t conform to his fairly narrow existing worldview. Tony claims his reputation as a mobster depends on him not appearing weak, and swears Carmela to secrecy about his therapy sessions, but the truth is that he’s embarrassed that he’s fallen victim to an ailment he views as undignified. His discomfort is very endearing. Of course, this is no lovable schlub on a CBS sitcom, but a man who has the means to deal out violence and death as he finds necessary. Tony is good-natured and easy to identify with, but there’s clearly another side to him that hasn’t come out yet.
I look forward to getting to know him and the rest of the “Sopranos” crew. I’m firmly on board with the story and the characters. However, more than a decade of increasing quality across a broad spectrum of television dramas means that the high production values of “The Sopranos” aren’t as impressive as they probably were back when the show premiered on HBO in 1999. Yes, it does hold up very well, probably better than a lot of movies from the same time period, but I can’t help noticing little things like the pedestrian opening sequence and the odd artificiality of Dr. Melfi’s office. The show’s aesthetic is a bit uneven at this point, but I’m assuming these minor bumps are going to be ironed out over time.
There’s no mystery why “The Sopranos” is so beloved, but after only a handful of episodes it’s far too early for me to say whether it’s really up there with the best television shows of all time. Still, I’m having fun picking out all the elements that it seems like every other crime series has copied or paid homage to, and I’m fairly sure many of my favorites like “Breaking Bad” and “Dexter” wouldn’t be here without “The Sopranos.” Things are looking good so far.
---
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The New Missus of "Mad Men"
I figure if I did a "Game of Thrones" post for the midpoint of its current season, I should do one for "Mad Men" too, which has been on fire this year. Season Five has been all about Megan Draper (Jessica Paré), and she has been a valuable addition to the ensemble. Spoilers for all episodes that have been aired so far
"Mad Men" is now firmly in the midst of the tumultuous 60s, and this season we've finally started seeing the cultural changes start to affect the employees of Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce. Minority staffers Dawn (Teyonah Parris) and Michael Ginsberg (Ben Feldman) were welcomed with a lot of fanfare, before slowly fading into the background, but perhaps not for long. The character who has done the most to shake up the place, and the life of Don Draper (Jon Hamm), has been his second wife Megan, who he proposed to on the spur of the moment, back at the end of Season Four. Over the long break, it was hard to imagine that Don wouldn't regret his impetuous decision after reality sunk in. However, the reality has been complicated. There's a lot more to Megan than there appears to be at first glance, and Jessica Paré has had the opportunity to turn the character into a showcase for her own formidable talents. The internet couldn't stop talking about her rendition of "Zou Bisou Bisou" after the season premiere.
After the disintegration of Don's marriage to Betty (January Jones), he cycled through several potential replacements, and at first it seemed like Megan was not one of his better options. She was his secretary, a would-be actress, and the age difference, though not extreme, was notable. So it was a welcome surprise that Megan became a copywriter at Sterling Cooper, and that she showed that she was capable of operating on Don's level in the workplace. She wasn't a minimally involved trophy wife like Jane Sterling (Peyton List) or trapped in the domestic sphere like Betty, but far closer in temperament and ambition to our favorite working girl, Peggy (Elizabeth Moss), and got along with her too. This doesn't mean that Don and Megan's marriage has been perfect. There have been fights and spats since very early on, and sometimes Megan's independence has been the major irritant. However, Megan has been good for Don. This season we've seen him happier and more stable than he's even been. Megan knows all about Dick Whitman, and she doesn't care.
Of course, there's still that ever-present feeling that the walls are closing in, though Don hasn't been subject to the worst of it this season. Pete (Vincent Kartheiser) has been suffering a much more visible downward spiral, and Peggy is showing increasing signs of strain. Don may be joining them in their existential misery soon. In last Sunday's episode, Megan revealed how tenuous Don's new happiness is, her decision to leave Sterling Cooper suddenly and profoundly disrupting both Don's work and home life. It's only in her absence that Don realizes that he's on the wrong side of a growing generation gap, and he's no longer at the height of his advertising powers. The fallout is likely to continue through the rest of the season, and I have to wonder if Don's second marriage is going to last through this year's finale.
Even if we don't see much of the newest Mrs. Draper past this point, she's contributed a hell of a lot dramatically, thematically, and entertainment-wise too. This season of "Mad Men" will almost certainly be a jumping-off point for Jessica Paré's career. She's outshone January Jones so thoroughly that Betty's minimal appearances this year have barely raised an eyebrow, though Megan enjoys the advantage of embodying all the transformative, vibrant, positives of 1960s youth culture that Don Draper keeps trying and failing to connect to. His brief happiness in the first half of this season may just end up making him more miserable in the end. The symbolism this season may be heavy-handed - the open elevator shafts, the life insurance policies, etc - but it's appropriate to the current storylines. Roger Sterling (John Slattery) on LSD was priceless.
I'd like more Joan (Christina Hendricks) and Sally (Kiernan Shipka), but I'm perfectly happy to see how the storyline with Megan plays out. She's been so good at teasing out new aspects of Don Draper, and provoking the rest of the characters, she was exactly the boost the show needed at this point in its run. Megan is one of the few examples of a New Girl that worked, and worked wonders.
---
"Mad Men" is now firmly in the midst of the tumultuous 60s, and this season we've finally started seeing the cultural changes start to affect the employees of Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce. Minority staffers Dawn (Teyonah Parris) and Michael Ginsberg (Ben Feldman) were welcomed with a lot of fanfare, before slowly fading into the background, but perhaps not for long. The character who has done the most to shake up the place, and the life of Don Draper (Jon Hamm), has been his second wife Megan, who he proposed to on the spur of the moment, back at the end of Season Four. Over the long break, it was hard to imagine that Don wouldn't regret his impetuous decision after reality sunk in. However, the reality has been complicated. There's a lot more to Megan than there appears to be at first glance, and Jessica Paré has had the opportunity to turn the character into a showcase for her own formidable talents. The internet couldn't stop talking about her rendition of "Zou Bisou Bisou" after the season premiere.
After the disintegration of Don's marriage to Betty (January Jones), he cycled through several potential replacements, and at first it seemed like Megan was not one of his better options. She was his secretary, a would-be actress, and the age difference, though not extreme, was notable. So it was a welcome surprise that Megan became a copywriter at Sterling Cooper, and that she showed that she was capable of operating on Don's level in the workplace. She wasn't a minimally involved trophy wife like Jane Sterling (Peyton List) or trapped in the domestic sphere like Betty, but far closer in temperament and ambition to our favorite working girl, Peggy (Elizabeth Moss), and got along with her too. This doesn't mean that Don and Megan's marriage has been perfect. There have been fights and spats since very early on, and sometimes Megan's independence has been the major irritant. However, Megan has been good for Don. This season we've seen him happier and more stable than he's even been. Megan knows all about Dick Whitman, and she doesn't care.
Of course, there's still that ever-present feeling that the walls are closing in, though Don hasn't been subject to the worst of it this season. Pete (Vincent Kartheiser) has been suffering a much more visible downward spiral, and Peggy is showing increasing signs of strain. Don may be joining them in their existential misery soon. In last Sunday's episode, Megan revealed how tenuous Don's new happiness is, her decision to leave Sterling Cooper suddenly and profoundly disrupting both Don's work and home life. It's only in her absence that Don realizes that he's on the wrong side of a growing generation gap, and he's no longer at the height of his advertising powers. The fallout is likely to continue through the rest of the season, and I have to wonder if Don's second marriage is going to last through this year's finale.
Even if we don't see much of the newest Mrs. Draper past this point, she's contributed a hell of a lot dramatically, thematically, and entertainment-wise too. This season of "Mad Men" will almost certainly be a jumping-off point for Jessica Paré's career. She's outshone January Jones so thoroughly that Betty's minimal appearances this year have barely raised an eyebrow, though Megan enjoys the advantage of embodying all the transformative, vibrant, positives of 1960s youth culture that Don Draper keeps trying and failing to connect to. His brief happiness in the first half of this season may just end up making him more miserable in the end. The symbolism this season may be heavy-handed - the open elevator shafts, the life insurance policies, etc - but it's appropriate to the current storylines. Roger Sterling (John Slattery) on LSD was priceless.
I'd like more Joan (Christina Hendricks) and Sally (Kiernan Shipka), but I'm perfectly happy to see how the storyline with Megan plays out. She's been so good at teasing out new aspects of Don Draper, and provoking the rest of the characters, she was exactly the boost the show needed at this point in its run. Megan is one of the few examples of a New Girl that worked, and worked wonders.
---
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
A Reality Check on Joss Whedon
Move over, John Favreau. Hold off, Christopher Nolan. It's Joss Whedon's turn to be King of Hollywood for a day. Whedon has just helmed the record-busting "The Avengers," what is sure to be one of the biggest summer blockbusters of all time. Now the writer/director of so many geek favorites should have the clout to pursue some of his own pet projects, right? Well, maybe and maybe not. Whedon fans breathlessly speculating about the prospects of a "Serenity 2" or a "Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog: The Movie" should take a minute to remember that Whedon's track record at the box office hasn't been great. "Cabin in the Woods" has only made $38 million, enough to recoup its budget. "Serenity," however, the only other movie Whedon has directed, did not.
The runaway success of "The Avengers" is as much due to hype and branding and the momentum of the existing Marvel franchise as it's due to the actual quality of the picture. More than one review noted that the feature felt like filmmaking by committee, driven by corporate mandate more than personal artistic vision. Sure, Whedon's sensibilities turned out to be a perfect fit for the material, but all that means is that he's now made himself one of the go-to directors for superhero movies, like Bryan Singer and Matthew Vaughan. He might have the chance to make some studio-funded personal projects, but they’ll come with a lot of strings. Whedon is nowhere near the level of a Tim Burton or a Steven Spielberg, who are proven box office draws, who can get big, expensive movies off the ground on the strength of their reputations alone. And I don't think he's up there with Favreau or Nolan yet either, who have managed to get the studios to foot the bill for some pretty risky non-franchise films, made between individual installments of the superhero series those directors have been the lynchpins of.
However, Joss Whedon's more personal projects aren't all that big and expensive. A few older scripting jobs aside, the films he's been associated with to date have all been pretty modest affairs, that don't come with the $150 million plus price tag of something like Christopher Nolan's "Inception" or Jon Favreau's "Cowboys & Aliens." Whedon already has his next film wrapped up, a microbudget, black-and-white indie adaptation of Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing," featuring a gaggle of actors who have showed up in his previous projects, including Nathan Fillion, Amy Acker, and Fran Kranz. It has no distributor at the moment, but I expect we’re going to see it premiere on pay-per-view or pre-theatrical VOD sometime in the fall. I don’t see why Disney or Marvel wouldn’t be willing to pay for a “Cabin in the Woods” sized project as part of a deal to get Whedon on board for an “Avengers 2.” However, the way that they’ve been shuffling directors around for their next round of superhero movies, I don’t think they’d pay for anything bigger.
Whedon could jump ship to other studios and franchises. If there’s anyone who should be in charge of rebooting “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” it’s him. Or finally getting a “Wonder Woman” movie into theaters. Heck, I think Warner Brothers would let him mastermind a whole “Justice League” series of films if he wanted. That would be a lot of fun, but I like Joss Whedon better when he’s pursuing original projects, setting up those niche, cult-worthy properties like “Firefly” and “Dollhouse” that have won him so many fans. Whedon doesn’t have to stay in the filmmaking realm either. He could go back to television and try to launch another series. He could make web videos or write comic books for the rest of his days, satisfied that he’d reached the top of the pop culture mountain.
Right now Joss Whedon is mainstream, he’s a hitmaker, and everybody loves him. However, he’s got a ways to go before he can really be considered a major player in the film world. What his latest success gives him is an opportunity, one I hope he takes advantage of. Being the guy who pulled off “The Avengers” is all very well and good, but Joss Whedon being best known for making Joss Whedon movies would be the best outcome for him that I can think of. If he wants that, of course. One of the things I appreciate about Whedon has always been that he’s so versatile and he’s so comfortable in so many different arenas, I have no idea what he’s going to do next.
---
The runaway success of "The Avengers" is as much due to hype and branding and the momentum of the existing Marvel franchise as it's due to the actual quality of the picture. More than one review noted that the feature felt like filmmaking by committee, driven by corporate mandate more than personal artistic vision. Sure, Whedon's sensibilities turned out to be a perfect fit for the material, but all that means is that he's now made himself one of the go-to directors for superhero movies, like Bryan Singer and Matthew Vaughan. He might have the chance to make some studio-funded personal projects, but they’ll come with a lot of strings. Whedon is nowhere near the level of a Tim Burton or a Steven Spielberg, who are proven box office draws, who can get big, expensive movies off the ground on the strength of their reputations alone. And I don't think he's up there with Favreau or Nolan yet either, who have managed to get the studios to foot the bill for some pretty risky non-franchise films, made between individual installments of the superhero series those directors have been the lynchpins of.
However, Joss Whedon's more personal projects aren't all that big and expensive. A few older scripting jobs aside, the films he's been associated with to date have all been pretty modest affairs, that don't come with the $150 million plus price tag of something like Christopher Nolan's "Inception" or Jon Favreau's "Cowboys & Aliens." Whedon already has his next film wrapped up, a microbudget, black-and-white indie adaptation of Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing," featuring a gaggle of actors who have showed up in his previous projects, including Nathan Fillion, Amy Acker, and Fran Kranz. It has no distributor at the moment, but I expect we’re going to see it premiere on pay-per-view or pre-theatrical VOD sometime in the fall. I don’t see why Disney or Marvel wouldn’t be willing to pay for a “Cabin in the Woods” sized project as part of a deal to get Whedon on board for an “Avengers 2.” However, the way that they’ve been shuffling directors around for their next round of superhero movies, I don’t think they’d pay for anything bigger.
Whedon could jump ship to other studios and franchises. If there’s anyone who should be in charge of rebooting “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” it’s him. Or finally getting a “Wonder Woman” movie into theaters. Heck, I think Warner Brothers would let him mastermind a whole “Justice League” series of films if he wanted. That would be a lot of fun, but I like Joss Whedon better when he’s pursuing original projects, setting up those niche, cult-worthy properties like “Firefly” and “Dollhouse” that have won him so many fans. Whedon doesn’t have to stay in the filmmaking realm either. He could go back to television and try to launch another series. He could make web videos or write comic books for the rest of his days, satisfied that he’d reached the top of the pop culture mountain.
Right now Joss Whedon is mainstream, he’s a hitmaker, and everybody loves him. However, he’s got a ways to go before he can really be considered a major player in the film world. What his latest success gives him is an opportunity, one I hope he takes advantage of. Being the guy who pulled off “The Avengers” is all very well and good, but Joss Whedon being best known for making Joss Whedon movies would be the best outcome for him that I can think of. If he wants that, of course. One of the things I appreciate about Whedon has always been that he’s so versatile and he’s so comfortable in so many different arenas, I have no idea what he’s going to do next.
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
