The trailer for the UK release of Studio Ghibli's "Arrietty" has been making the rounds, which will feature Saoirse Ronan in the title role. The Brits will get to see the film in theaters this August, six months before the American release in February, 2012, because different companies ended up with the distribution rights in each country. Optimum Releasing will be handling the UK distribution, and as with all the recent Ghibli films, Disney's Buena Vista has the North American distribution. According to Boxoffice Mojo and IMDB, it looks like Optimum has had the rights to distribute the Ghibli films as least as far back as "Spirited Away," though they previously used the Disney dubs. This is apparently the first time that Optimum has opted to dub one of the Ghibli films itself. Disney will still be doing its own version, featuring Carol Burnett, Will Arnett, Amy Poehler, and a couple of Disney Channel tween stars to play the kids - pretty much par for the course for them.
And now we're left with a dilemma. I've never had a problem with Disney's dubs of the Ghibli films, aside from some slight dumbing down of the scripts for younger audiences. They've done a great job of attracting good talent, and using Disney's considerable resources to turn out far more polished work than most other domestic anime dubbing outfits could ever hope to. Yet "Arrietty" is based on Mary Norton's "The Borrowers," a British series of children's books. It seems more fitting that "Arrietty" should have a dub featuring UK actors. And I'm sorry, but Saoirse Ronan wins out over Bridget Mendler from "Wizards of Waverly Place" no matter how you cut it. On the other hand, the Ghibli film rewrote the material so the story doesn't place in any particular place or culture. There's no reason why Arrietty shouldn't have an American accent. So there's no point in making comparisons or playing favorites until we've actually heard some of the Disney version.
I guess the question is whether the two different dubs are going to cause confusion, and if there might be enough demand for the UK dub among American viewers to affect the performance of the US one. I doubt the American audience was ever supposed to be aware of the British version, but in the age of the Internet, it was only a matter of time. The way the release dates are scheduled, the Optimum version of "Arrietty" might be released on DVD in the UK a month or two before it hits theaters in the US, and savvy, impatient Ghibli fans could easily import them. If Disney and Buena Vista are unhappy about this, they only have themselves to blame for dragging their feet. The film has already reached DVD in Japan and France, and will see theatrical release in most of the rest of Europe this summer. At the time of writing, the US is the last major market where "Arrietty" will be released.
But then, Disney doesn't have as much incentive. "Arrietty" has already been a substantial hit in much of the rest of the world, and banked north of $120 million, but Ghibli films generally don't do so well in the United States. The highest grossing Ghibli film in the US to date has been "Ponyo," which only pulled in $15 million, despite an unusually wide release in 927 theaters. "Arrietty" was expected to open in the US in 2011, and I worry that the delay signals that Disney might be tiring of the small returns and the difficulty in marketing these pictures. Opening in February also means that "Arrietty" won't be up for awards contention this winter, unless it's also getting a yet-to-be-announced limited release in December. Some have speculated that Disney might stop theatrically releasing future Ghibli features altogether and send them straight to DVD, where they make most of their money. This would be a shame, since the Ghibli films are always visually spectacular and really deserve to be seen on the big screen.
I for one am still waiting for "Arrietty" to reach theaters here in the US, but I'm also considering my options. I balked at the cost of importing a Japanese DVD, but the European and British ones aren't nearly as pricey, and I'm probably going to buy some version of "Arrietty" anyway. Since the British dub has a cast at least on par with the Disney one, and it's probably the only way I'll ever be able to get a look at that version, buying a Region 2 UK release instead of a US one is a very tempting possibility. Having two different English dubs out there might seem a little odd, but it's opening up some interesting new options here. This could turn out to be a good thing for Ghibli fans.
---
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
On the Critical/Audience Divide and "Transformers 3"
It's that time again. "Transformers: Dark of the Moon," the third film in Michale Bay's "Transformers" series, has grossed over $180 million at the domestic box office since Tuesday,and another $200 million overseas. It now holds the highest July 4th weekend gross of all time, though it's not doing as well as "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen." The critics have been less kind. Over at Rottentomatoes, "Dark of the Moon" currently has 38% positive ratings, and Metascore givs it a 42. Some have taken this as further proof that the gap between critics and audiences is widening, and that critics are growing increasingly out of touch with what mainstream filmgoers want to see and are thus less becoming relevant. To which I reply, how many times have we had this argument? Why are we still having it?
The first time I heard the whole spiel about the audience/critic divide was twenty years ago, when it was lamented that the Best Picture nominees for the 1990 Oscars and the top five grossing films of the year only had one title in common: the supernatural romantic thriller "Ghost." The biggest moneymaker of that year? "Home Alone," which boasts a 43% Rotten Tomatoes score. Since the beginnings of commercial cinema, there have been movies that want nothing more than to be populist crowd-pleasers, and movies with loftier artistic goals aimed at a smaller, more discerning crowd. Sometimes when we get lucky, and somebody makes an "Inception" or a "District 9" that manages to be both, but usually, it's one or the other. Some people prefer one type, but there are plenty of people like me out there who have the ability to enjoy both "Miss Congeniality" and "Mulholland Drive" at the same time without tying ourselves into existential knots about the contradictions.
Now how do the critics play into all of this? Contrary to popular opinion, critics can and do evaluate a film based on different criteria, and most like Roger Ebert are perfectly competent at rating movies based on entertainment value or artistic value when appropriate. Nobody is going to hold a "Jackass" movie to the same standards as a new Paul Thomas Anderson or Michael Mann film. However, movie critics inevitably end up being associated with the more serious, more difficult films, because these are the ones they're in the best position to promote and champion. Without the benefit of a big marketing campaign behind them, smaller, off-the-beaten-path films often depend on good critical notices to gain traction with audiences. This summer, for instance, attention from critics helped Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris" achieve his best showing at the box office in decades. Summer blockbusters, on the other hand, generally don't need the cheerleading. This isn't to say that it's pointless for critics to review the mainstream studio films. The value of an informed opinion will always matter to people who want to see good movies, or at least competent ones.
However, it's more difficult for critics to have an impact here than it used to be. The bigger, more expensive films that get made today are designed and marketed in such a way as to be "critic-proof." These are the summer and holiday blockbuster films aimed at the less discerning child and young adult audiences, who are more easily influenced by aggressive marketing, hype, and branding. Trailers and promotions do their best to sell viewers on new films by conforming to familiar, easy-to-identify formulas, be it a child-friendly CGI film, a raunchy comedy, or a shoot-em-up action film. They give away more of a film's story and content than ever, to the point where some outright spoil the film. When they don't, as in the case of "Super 8," executives get nervous because there's too much uncertainty left in the mind of a potential viewer - without enough information they might look at a movie review for a second opinion. The studios have fixed it so that quality of a film doesn't determine the opening numbers for a big summer picture anymore - the strength of its marketing does.
And since quality is what the critics are all about, in this arena they've become more and more marginalized. However, critics can still help to cut through the advertising messages, to tell us that "Rango" has a subversive, off-kilter streak, that older viewers might enjoy, or that it's safe to take a male significant-other to "Bridesmaids," or that "X-Men: First Class" is actually much better than the awful trailers would suggest. Looking beyond the reductive Rottentomatoes statistic that only 38% of critics gave "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" positive marks, it's apparent that most critics agree that this is easily the best film of the "Transformers" trilogy, and that the last hour contained very impressive action sequences. Failing marks were given based on the elements that audiences have come back from theaters complaining about - it was too long, the first hour was a bore, there wasn't enough of the Transformers characters, and Michael Bay is still... Michael Bay. But of course, audiences don't see all the movies that the critics have to, and are more forgiving of a film's flaws and more easily won over by cool pyrotechnics. And there was plenty of good mayhem in "Transformers: Dark of the Moon," much of it featured in the impressive trailers and television commercials for the movie.
Is there a critic/audience divide? Sure, but it's always been there. It's practically in the job description of a film critic to have higher standards, and so it's inevitable that their opinions aren't going to reflect popular tastes, especially when applied to films that are as far over on the pure, mindless, entertainment end of the movie spectrum as "Transformers: Dark of the Moon." And as for relevance, it's always been the case that critics matter more for some films than others. Those snubbing their noses at movie reviewers in July may have to change their tune when awards season comes around in December, when everyone will want the critics on their side.
Can we stop having this argument now?
---
The first time I heard the whole spiel about the audience/critic divide was twenty years ago, when it was lamented that the Best Picture nominees for the 1990 Oscars and the top five grossing films of the year only had one title in common: the supernatural romantic thriller "Ghost." The biggest moneymaker of that year? "Home Alone," which boasts a 43% Rotten Tomatoes score. Since the beginnings of commercial cinema, there have been movies that want nothing more than to be populist crowd-pleasers, and movies with loftier artistic goals aimed at a smaller, more discerning crowd. Sometimes when we get lucky, and somebody makes an "Inception" or a "District 9" that manages to be both, but usually, it's one or the other. Some people prefer one type, but there are plenty of people like me out there who have the ability to enjoy both "Miss Congeniality" and "Mulholland Drive" at the same time without tying ourselves into existential knots about the contradictions.
Now how do the critics play into all of this? Contrary to popular opinion, critics can and do evaluate a film based on different criteria, and most like Roger Ebert are perfectly competent at rating movies based on entertainment value or artistic value when appropriate. Nobody is going to hold a "Jackass" movie to the same standards as a new Paul Thomas Anderson or Michael Mann film. However, movie critics inevitably end up being associated with the more serious, more difficult films, because these are the ones they're in the best position to promote and champion. Without the benefit of a big marketing campaign behind them, smaller, off-the-beaten-path films often depend on good critical notices to gain traction with audiences. This summer, for instance, attention from critics helped Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris" achieve his best showing at the box office in decades. Summer blockbusters, on the other hand, generally don't need the cheerleading. This isn't to say that it's pointless for critics to review the mainstream studio films. The value of an informed opinion will always matter to people who want to see good movies, or at least competent ones.
However, it's more difficult for critics to have an impact here than it used to be. The bigger, more expensive films that get made today are designed and marketed in such a way as to be "critic-proof." These are the summer and holiday blockbuster films aimed at the less discerning child and young adult audiences, who are more easily influenced by aggressive marketing, hype, and branding. Trailers and promotions do their best to sell viewers on new films by conforming to familiar, easy-to-identify formulas, be it a child-friendly CGI film, a raunchy comedy, or a shoot-em-up action film. They give away more of a film's story and content than ever, to the point where some outright spoil the film. When they don't, as in the case of "Super 8," executives get nervous because there's too much uncertainty left in the mind of a potential viewer - without enough information they might look at a movie review for a second opinion. The studios have fixed it so that quality of a film doesn't determine the opening numbers for a big summer picture anymore - the strength of its marketing does.
And since quality is what the critics are all about, in this arena they've become more and more marginalized. However, critics can still help to cut through the advertising messages, to tell us that "Rango" has a subversive, off-kilter streak, that older viewers might enjoy, or that it's safe to take a male significant-other to "Bridesmaids," or that "X-Men: First Class" is actually much better than the awful trailers would suggest. Looking beyond the reductive Rottentomatoes statistic that only 38% of critics gave "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" positive marks, it's apparent that most critics agree that this is easily the best film of the "Transformers" trilogy, and that the last hour contained very impressive action sequences. Failing marks were given based on the elements that audiences have come back from theaters complaining about - it was too long, the first hour was a bore, there wasn't enough of the Transformers characters, and Michael Bay is still... Michael Bay. But of course, audiences don't see all the movies that the critics have to, and are more forgiving of a film's flaws and more easily won over by cool pyrotechnics. And there was plenty of good mayhem in "Transformers: Dark of the Moon," much of it featured in the impressive trailers and television commercials for the movie.
Is there a critic/audience divide? Sure, but it's always been there. It's practically in the job description of a film critic to have higher standards, and so it's inevitable that their opinions aren't going to reflect popular tastes, especially when applied to films that are as far over on the pure, mindless, entertainment end of the movie spectrum as "Transformers: Dark of the Moon." And as for relevance, it's always been the case that critics matter more for some films than others. Those snubbing their noses at movie reviewers in July may have to change their tune when awards season comes around in December, when everyone will want the critics on their side.
Can we stop having this argument now?
---
Monday, July 4, 2011
Burning Up With "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me"
Oh, I wish I could hate this movie. I wish I could call out David Lynch for being a needlessly obscure, pretentious jerk of a director, too good to resolve that cliffhanger he left at the end of the "Twin Peaks" television series. Instead, he springs a prequel on us. A prequel! Maybe he was hoping that if the film did well, ABC would resurrect the series? Well, considering the content of the movie, I think it's safe to say that was not the case. Rather, I find I must hand over grudging kudos, to a film that was nothing that I expected.
First things first. Do you need to watch the "Twin Peaks" television series in order to understand what is going on in "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me"? It is much harder to follow the story if you don't know who the characters are from the outset, and why they're important. On the other hand, new viewers can avoid the severe tonal whiplash of going from the televised "Twin Peaks" to the cinematic one. The series had a fairly easy-to-follow, serialized narrative and hewed pretty close to the norms of other television dramas of the time. It was bizarre and disturbing on occasion, but always subject to moments of easy humor, atmospheric small-town charm, and the constraints of broadcast standards and practices.
"Fire Walk With Me," by contrast, is your average, non-linear, nightmarish, quasi-experimental David Lynch film. It takes an axe to a television set in the opening scene, and then proceeds to show all the dark, graphic, horrific content that they couldn't put on prime time. You see the drug use. You see the sex scenes with plenty of partial nudity. In my previous post about "Twin Peaks," I stated that I enjoyed the darker, less conventional elements of the series and hoped that we'd more of them in the film. Oh self, be careful what you wish for. I did not appreciate the show's picturesque visuals and that wonderfully balanced, easygoing but uneasy tone, until they were gone. "Fire Walk With Me" is grim, bleak, and brutal all the way through, and it may have been too much.
Initially I thought that the change in atmosphere was only temporary. The first part of the film follows new characters Agent Chester Desmond (Chris Isaak) and Agent Sam Stanley (Kiefer Sutherland) in the town of Deer Meadow as they look into the murder of a girl named Teresa Banks (Pamela Gidley). The investigation in Deer Meadow, a place where everyone is unfriendly, suspicious, and cold, can be seen as a mirror opposite to the investigation of Laura Palmer's death in Twin Peaks, where characters are eccentric, but very genial and welcoming. However, the gloom and oppressiveness carries over to the rest of the film in Twin Peaks, where we witness the last days of troubled Laura Palmer (Sheryl Lee). And this is where it helps to know some of the story details from the series to help decipher what is going on.
Laura discovers that the evil spirit BOB (Frank Silva) has possessed one of those nearest and dearest to her. He's the one who murdered Teresa and is after Laura next. The knowledge sends her into a spiral of ugly, self-destructive behavior, to the concern of her parents (Ray Wise and Grace Zabriskie), best friend Donna (Moira Kelly, standing in for Lara Flynn Boyle), and boyfriends Bobby (Dana Ashbrook) and James (James Marshall). Along the way, she stumbles upon or sets up several of the subplots from the series, like the drug running scheme and the agoraphobic horticulturalist (Lenny von Dohlen). Several prophetic visions are intermixed with a jumbled narrative, and the sequence of events is still often unclear. And throughout, there's an off-putting sleaziness and vileness about everything, heightened by the fact that it's so unlike the safer, milder world of the television series.
But though the narrative incoherence may be frustrating to those "Twin Peaks" fans looking for concrete answers, and the content is often repellent, I have to say that I ultimately found the film very satisfying. Laura Palmer becomes a real character at last, rather than a phantom of a prom-queen-gone-bad. Sheryl Lee, despite not really being able to pass for a teenager, gives a solid performance that gets us to empathize with her. "Fire Walk With Me" may not explain exactly what happened to Laura or why she was the way she was, but it did open a window on her mental and emotional state for us, and gave us a glimpse of the real girl at the root of the whole mystery. It even provided some closure, through Laura's interactions with the various supernatural characters and the final scenes in the famous Red Room. I came away at the end knowing that she was okay, and so was Agent Cooper (Kyle MacLachlan), the hero of the series who makes an important appearance.
Some things still rankle too much to be left unnoted, like the stunt casting and several cameos by familiar characters that didn't add much to the movie. And I have no idea what the bit with David Bowie was all about, except that it seems fitting that David Bowie should exist in the maddening world of "Twin Peaks," and by extension, the wider David Lynch universe. Ultimately, I got what I wanted from the film: a little more insight into the series. It just took two long hours to get there, I often didn't like what I found, and the few answers only brought more questions. With David Lynch films, I've long since resigned myself to letting these things go.
And as of completing the entire saga of "Twin Peaks," I am happy to say that I have finished David Lynch's filmography at last. I think I'll write up a post on my favorite Lynch movie in the near future.
---
First things first. Do you need to watch the "Twin Peaks" television series in order to understand what is going on in "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me"? It is much harder to follow the story if you don't know who the characters are from the outset, and why they're important. On the other hand, new viewers can avoid the severe tonal whiplash of going from the televised "Twin Peaks" to the cinematic one. The series had a fairly easy-to-follow, serialized narrative and hewed pretty close to the norms of other television dramas of the time. It was bizarre and disturbing on occasion, but always subject to moments of easy humor, atmospheric small-town charm, and the constraints of broadcast standards and practices.
"Fire Walk With Me," by contrast, is your average, non-linear, nightmarish, quasi-experimental David Lynch film. It takes an axe to a television set in the opening scene, and then proceeds to show all the dark, graphic, horrific content that they couldn't put on prime time. You see the drug use. You see the sex scenes with plenty of partial nudity. In my previous post about "Twin Peaks," I stated that I enjoyed the darker, less conventional elements of the series and hoped that we'd more of them in the film. Oh self, be careful what you wish for. I did not appreciate the show's picturesque visuals and that wonderfully balanced, easygoing but uneasy tone, until they were gone. "Fire Walk With Me" is grim, bleak, and brutal all the way through, and it may have been too much.
Initially I thought that the change in atmosphere was only temporary. The first part of the film follows new characters Agent Chester Desmond (Chris Isaak) and Agent Sam Stanley (Kiefer Sutherland) in the town of Deer Meadow as they look into the murder of a girl named Teresa Banks (Pamela Gidley). The investigation in Deer Meadow, a place where everyone is unfriendly, suspicious, and cold, can be seen as a mirror opposite to the investigation of Laura Palmer's death in Twin Peaks, where characters are eccentric, but very genial and welcoming. However, the gloom and oppressiveness carries over to the rest of the film in Twin Peaks, where we witness the last days of troubled Laura Palmer (Sheryl Lee). And this is where it helps to know some of the story details from the series to help decipher what is going on.
Laura discovers that the evil spirit BOB (Frank Silva) has possessed one of those nearest and dearest to her. He's the one who murdered Teresa and is after Laura next. The knowledge sends her into a spiral of ugly, self-destructive behavior, to the concern of her parents (Ray Wise and Grace Zabriskie), best friend Donna (Moira Kelly, standing in for Lara Flynn Boyle), and boyfriends Bobby (Dana Ashbrook) and James (James Marshall). Along the way, she stumbles upon or sets up several of the subplots from the series, like the drug running scheme and the agoraphobic horticulturalist (Lenny von Dohlen). Several prophetic visions are intermixed with a jumbled narrative, and the sequence of events is still often unclear. And throughout, there's an off-putting sleaziness and vileness about everything, heightened by the fact that it's so unlike the safer, milder world of the television series.
But though the narrative incoherence may be frustrating to those "Twin Peaks" fans looking for concrete answers, and the content is often repellent, I have to say that I ultimately found the film very satisfying. Laura Palmer becomes a real character at last, rather than a phantom of a prom-queen-gone-bad. Sheryl Lee, despite not really being able to pass for a teenager, gives a solid performance that gets us to empathize with her. "Fire Walk With Me" may not explain exactly what happened to Laura or why she was the way she was, but it did open a window on her mental and emotional state for us, and gave us a glimpse of the real girl at the root of the whole mystery. It even provided some closure, through Laura's interactions with the various supernatural characters and the final scenes in the famous Red Room. I came away at the end knowing that she was okay, and so was Agent Cooper (Kyle MacLachlan), the hero of the series who makes an important appearance.
Some things still rankle too much to be left unnoted, like the stunt casting and several cameos by familiar characters that didn't add much to the movie. And I have no idea what the bit with David Bowie was all about, except that it seems fitting that David Bowie should exist in the maddening world of "Twin Peaks," and by extension, the wider David Lynch universe. Ultimately, I got what I wanted from the film: a little more insight into the series. It just took two long hours to get there, I often didn't like what I found, and the few answers only brought more questions. With David Lynch films, I've long since resigned myself to letting these things go.
And as of completing the entire saga of "Twin Peaks," I am happy to say that I have finished David Lynch's filmography at last. I think I'll write up a post on my favorite Lynch movie in the near future.
---
Sunday, July 3, 2011
The First Rule of Fanfiction Is...
It's been a while since I did a fandom post, but a collision of fandom and business occurred a few days ago that requires some comment. If you are a fan of "Lord of the Rings," you may be aware of the sizable portion of the fan community that likes to write fanfiction. One of the biggest online archives of "Lord of the Rings" fanfiction is the archive site LOTRFanFiction.com, which has been owned and operated by a member of the "Lord of the Rings" fan community since 2004. The site's stats indicate a user base of over four thousand members and hosts at least as many stories. An announcement popped up a few days ago that the site's owner had sold LOTRFanFiction.com, citing financial issues. The new owner is Keith Mander, former employee of Facebook, who has been buying up several similar fan-run sites, with the intent to commercialize them. To say the "Lord of the Rings" fandom has not been taking this development well is an understatement.
The first rule of fanfiction is that you do not make money off of fanfiction. Fanfiction, like remix videos, like fanart, and like so much of the other fan-generated content on the internet, falls into a gray area of copyright law. The use of elements from someone else's intellectual property may be seen as infringing, but most fan work is transformative enough that it falls under the Fair Use exception. This usually doesn't stop companies seeking to protect their intellectual property, but so long as the fan work is non-commercial, there is far less incentive to take any legal action. Therefore, it has long been the rule in every fandom that's been around the block a few times that commercializing fan works is simply not done. Those who try are mocked, or quickly directed to accounts of prior legal battles over fan-generated content that have negatively impacted fandom. The Marion Zimmer Bradley controversy, and the Harry Potter Lexicon trial are among the best known. The Lord of the Rings fandom has a history that goes back long before the Internet, and they've had their share of scuffles with the Tolkien estate already.
And then there's the little matter of the fandom culture, which works largely through a gift-based economy. If you think that copyright owners are protective of their material, they are nothing compared to the writers and artists who make up these tight-knit fan communities. Fanfiction writers are largely hobbyists, and many don't aspire to be anything else. Some may be trying to sharpen their writing skills and become published writers of original fiction, and there are a few notables using pseudonyms (shhhh!) who already are, but in the fandom sandbox the stories are written for the benefit of other fans and for the love the source material. Profit is not part of the equation. Staying under the radar and out of trouble with copyright holders is - pseudonyms are de rigeur. Fanfiction writers will use existing social networking platforms and fan-run archive sites to facilitate sharing their stories, but providing the content for a corporate venture trying to monetize the fandom is another matter entirely. Fears of exploitation and mismanagement by those who don't understand the risks and the unwritten rules of the fanfiction community are very real.
It isn't clear what changes will be made to LOTRFanFiction.com under the new management, but it probably won't be something as simple as adding banner ads to the site. Being for profit means the site will become more visible to attract more users, and the new owners will almost certainly move to minimize potential risks. Stories with adult content will be the first to go. Any material deemed controversial or problematic may follow. Writers may have to give up the rights to the stories they post on the site, and be subject to outside censorship and editing. The additional attention brought upon the community will put fanfiction writers under increased scrutiny, but you can count on a new Terms of Service agreement putting all legal responsibility for any infringement claims upon the writers. This is what happened the last time a group of business folk got together to try and create a for-profit fanfiction website, FanLib, which lasted less than eighteen months. What are the fanfiction writers supposed to get out of monetization? Possibly more recognition and acceptance by the mainstream, which I doubt the bulk of fandom even wants. Is it any wonder that many writers are leaving LOTRFanFiction.com before this happens, and taking their stories and readership with them?
In general, fan work and corporations do not mix well. There are too many potential landmines on the business end, related to thorny copyright legalities, privacy issues, and an extremely sensitive user base. As for the fanfiction, so much of it is about coloring outside the lines of the original source material, being critical, subversive, outrageous, and occasionally unflattering. Corporate oversight is not only unnecessary, but potentially harmful. Limitations placed on content will inevitably stifle creativity. Unfamiliarity with fandom mores may result in poor communication and mismanagement. Keith Mander may be the new owner of LOTRFanFiction.com, but he's crazy if he thought he bought its community.
The Internet does not lack for fanfiction sites - anyone can make one these days - and fandom is nothing if not mobile.
---
The first rule of fanfiction is that you do not make money off of fanfiction. Fanfiction, like remix videos, like fanart, and like so much of the other fan-generated content on the internet, falls into a gray area of copyright law. The use of elements from someone else's intellectual property may be seen as infringing, but most fan work is transformative enough that it falls under the Fair Use exception. This usually doesn't stop companies seeking to protect their intellectual property, but so long as the fan work is non-commercial, there is far less incentive to take any legal action. Therefore, it has long been the rule in every fandom that's been around the block a few times that commercializing fan works is simply not done. Those who try are mocked, or quickly directed to accounts of prior legal battles over fan-generated content that have negatively impacted fandom. The Marion Zimmer Bradley controversy, and the Harry Potter Lexicon trial are among the best known. The Lord of the Rings fandom has a history that goes back long before the Internet, and they've had their share of scuffles with the Tolkien estate already.
And then there's the little matter of the fandom culture, which works largely through a gift-based economy. If you think that copyright owners are protective of their material, they are nothing compared to the writers and artists who make up these tight-knit fan communities. Fanfiction writers are largely hobbyists, and many don't aspire to be anything else. Some may be trying to sharpen their writing skills and become published writers of original fiction, and there are a few notables using pseudonyms (shhhh!) who already are, but in the fandom sandbox the stories are written for the benefit of other fans and for the love the source material. Profit is not part of the equation. Staying under the radar and out of trouble with copyright holders is - pseudonyms are de rigeur. Fanfiction writers will use existing social networking platforms and fan-run archive sites to facilitate sharing their stories, but providing the content for a corporate venture trying to monetize the fandom is another matter entirely. Fears of exploitation and mismanagement by those who don't understand the risks and the unwritten rules of the fanfiction community are very real.
It isn't clear what changes will be made to LOTRFanFiction.com under the new management, but it probably won't be something as simple as adding banner ads to the site. Being for profit means the site will become more visible to attract more users, and the new owners will almost certainly move to minimize potential risks. Stories with adult content will be the first to go. Any material deemed controversial or problematic may follow. Writers may have to give up the rights to the stories they post on the site, and be subject to outside censorship and editing. The additional attention brought upon the community will put fanfiction writers under increased scrutiny, but you can count on a new Terms of Service agreement putting all legal responsibility for any infringement claims upon the writers. This is what happened the last time a group of business folk got together to try and create a for-profit fanfiction website, FanLib, which lasted less than eighteen months. What are the fanfiction writers supposed to get out of monetization? Possibly more recognition and acceptance by the mainstream, which I doubt the bulk of fandom even wants. Is it any wonder that many writers are leaving LOTRFanFiction.com before this happens, and taking their stories and readership with them?
In general, fan work and corporations do not mix well. There are too many potential landmines on the business end, related to thorny copyright legalities, privacy issues, and an extremely sensitive user base. As for the fanfiction, so much of it is about coloring outside the lines of the original source material, being critical, subversive, outrageous, and occasionally unflattering. Corporate oversight is not only unnecessary, but potentially harmful. Limitations placed on content will inevitably stifle creativity. Unfamiliarity with fandom mores may result in poor communication and mismanagement. Keith Mander may be the new owner of LOTRFanFiction.com, but he's crazy if he thought he bought its community.
The Internet does not lack for fanfiction sites - anyone can make one these days - and fandom is nothing if not mobile.
---
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Would You Use MoviePass?
One of the more spectacular entertainment service blunders of the year may be the introduction of MoviePass, an AOL service that would let moviegoers essentially buy a subscription plan for watching movies in theaters. Per this Wired article, you would pay a flat fee of $50 a month to watch as many films in a theater as many times as you want, via a nifty new smartphone reservation app. A "lite" plan would let you watch up to four films for $30. More than one source described MoviePass as a potential Netflix for movie theaters.
A test run was supposed to roll out in San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area in 21 theaters this weekend, and then go national in the fall. Unfortunately, it soon came out that AOL hadn't exactly worked out the details with individual theater chains yet, and AMC and Landmark quickly announced that they wanted no part in the MoviePass beta test, dropping the number of participating theaters down to about five Camera Cinemas in San Jose. The plans for the beta test were put on "hiatus," and we all collectively rolled our eyes at AOL for the premature announcement.
Corporate stumbles aside, is this a good deal for moviegoers? In my case, yes. I like the theater experience, and I would go more often if I could. Rising ticket prices have been a major reason why I've had to cut back on trips to the multiplex and wait until many films hit DVD. The Bay Area is my neck of the woods, so I think I can provide a little price analysis here - ticket prices vary from place to place, so I'm assuming the MoviePass prices would also vary accordingly. A single evening movie ticket will usually run me about $10-12 before surcharges - more than a whole month of Netflix. There are some decent matinee deals around, but my schedule is such that I can't take advantage of them very often. At my local AMC, it's $6 for the morning screenings and $8 for the afternoon ones. The smaller houses vary. Currently, I can only justify going to see a movie in theaters at evening prices about twice a month.
With that in mind, I think the $50 unlimited plan would be worth it at certain times of the year for a really rabid cinephile, assuming you could buy month to month. December and January awards season would be amazing, being able to run amok among my local indie and art theaters, seeing every single Oscar nominee, and the movies that should have been Oscar nominees, and all the holiday releases on top of that. In the spring and summer on the other hand, I've found that there is really only about one interesting film I'd pay to see in theaters being released per week. I'm sorry Hollywood, but just because you spend $100 million dollars to market a film doesn't make it interesting. An unlimited plan wouldn't be worth the money, though the $30 limited plan might be feasible. The price is still on the high side, considering $30 for four tickets costs about the same or is actually more expensive than just buying matinee tickets individually from a major chain.
And this is assuming that both the chains and smaller theaters would be participating, in order to maximize viewing choices. The deal would be a lot less attractive without one or the other. I don't watch mainstream movies or limited releases exclusively. If I had to choose between them, I'd pick the limited releases simply because they're harder to find and less accessible in the long run. I'm still waiting for some movies to reach DVD that I wish I had seen in theaters back in December. Most moviegoers aren't like me, though. I'm sure a chain could roll out a similar service with few complaints.
MoviePass is a promising idea, and I'll follow future developments with interest. A subscription service could do a lot to help attract viewers who have been abandoning movie screens for cheaper entertainment options. Theater owners should remember that even though Hollywood has been reaping bigger box office totals than ever, audience attendance has actually been dropping precipitously. It's good to see someone being proactive about turning the tide. AOL may have jumped the gun, but now that the idea is out there, I think it's only a matter of time before someone tries this again - maybe an individual chain, or maybe a group of smaller theaters.
Until then, back to Netflix.
---
A test run was supposed to roll out in San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area in 21 theaters this weekend, and then go national in the fall. Unfortunately, it soon came out that AOL hadn't exactly worked out the details with individual theater chains yet, and AMC and Landmark quickly announced that they wanted no part in the MoviePass beta test, dropping the number of participating theaters down to about five Camera Cinemas in San Jose. The plans for the beta test were put on "hiatus," and we all collectively rolled our eyes at AOL for the premature announcement.
Corporate stumbles aside, is this a good deal for moviegoers? In my case, yes. I like the theater experience, and I would go more often if I could. Rising ticket prices have been a major reason why I've had to cut back on trips to the multiplex and wait until many films hit DVD. The Bay Area is my neck of the woods, so I think I can provide a little price analysis here - ticket prices vary from place to place, so I'm assuming the MoviePass prices would also vary accordingly. A single evening movie ticket will usually run me about $10-12 before surcharges - more than a whole month of Netflix. There are some decent matinee deals around, but my schedule is such that I can't take advantage of them very often. At my local AMC, it's $6 for the morning screenings and $8 for the afternoon ones. The smaller houses vary. Currently, I can only justify going to see a movie in theaters at evening prices about twice a month.
With that in mind, I think the $50 unlimited plan would be worth it at certain times of the year for a really rabid cinephile, assuming you could buy month to month. December and January awards season would be amazing, being able to run amok among my local indie and art theaters, seeing every single Oscar nominee, and the movies that should have been Oscar nominees, and all the holiday releases on top of that. In the spring and summer on the other hand, I've found that there is really only about one interesting film I'd pay to see in theaters being released per week. I'm sorry Hollywood, but just because you spend $100 million dollars to market a film doesn't make it interesting. An unlimited plan wouldn't be worth the money, though the $30 limited plan might be feasible. The price is still on the high side, considering $30 for four tickets costs about the same or is actually more expensive than just buying matinee tickets individually from a major chain.
And this is assuming that both the chains and smaller theaters would be participating, in order to maximize viewing choices. The deal would be a lot less attractive without one or the other. I don't watch mainstream movies or limited releases exclusively. If I had to choose between them, I'd pick the limited releases simply because they're harder to find and less accessible in the long run. I'm still waiting for some movies to reach DVD that I wish I had seen in theaters back in December. Most moviegoers aren't like me, though. I'm sure a chain could roll out a similar service with few complaints.
MoviePass is a promising idea, and I'll follow future developments with interest. A subscription service could do a lot to help attract viewers who have been abandoning movie screens for cheaper entertainment options. Theater owners should remember that even though Hollywood has been reaping bigger box office totals than ever, audience attendance has actually been dropping precipitously. It's good to see someone being proactive about turning the tide. AOL may have jumped the gun, but now that the idea is out there, I think it's only a matter of time before someone tries this again - maybe an individual chain, or maybe a group of smaller theaters.
Until then, back to Netflix.
---
Friday, July 1, 2011
2012 May Be Leonardo DiCaprio's Year
I don't count myself as a big fan of Leonardo DiCaprio, but I've seen him around for years, and I respect his work. He was one of the first movie stars I was really aware of as he became a movie star, moving from a short stint on the sitcom "Growing Pains," to indie fare like "This Boy's Life" and "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?" to headlining one of the biggest blockbusters of the '90s, "Titanic." And then, as is the case with too many of the actors of his generation, he promptly decided to distance himself from his teen idol status, and went off to make a lot of serious dramatic movies for the next decade. This nabbed him Academy Award nominations for "The Aviator" and "Blood Diamond," but I don't think I've seen the guy crack a smile onscreen since "Catch Me If You Can" in 2002. Many critics noted that DiCaprio's two 2010 films, "Shutter Island" and "Inception," had him play variations on the same guilt-stricken father with a tenuous grip on reality. As good as he is in these roles - and he is good - you can't help feeling that DiCaprio has fallen into a bit of a rut, or is overcompensating for his earlier mainstream roles.
This may change in 2012. Right now Leonardo DiCaprio is finishing up a J. Edgar Hoover biopic with Clint Eastwood, which should reach screens by the end of the year. Then he'll head to Australia to play the title role in "The Great Gatsby" for Baz Luhrmann. J. Edgar Hoover and Jay Gatsby should be great fodder for interesting performances, and might even put him in awards contention again. But what intrigues me are the roles that might come after that, which DiCaprio is currently circling.
First there's Calvin Candie, the villainous plantation owner in Quentin Tarantino's "Django Unchained." According to the synopsis over at Indie Wire, Candie is an eccentric Francophile who insists on being addressed as "Monsieur," owns a seedy club called Candyland, and also deals in "mandingo fighting slaves." We're not just talking about a villain here, but a wildly over-the-top Tarantino villain with an extra helping of shlock. You couldn't ask for a better departure from DiCaprio's recent string of intense, gloomy leading men. I'm not sold on "Django Unchained" yet, and have deep reservations about some of the content that's supposed to be in it, especially after what Tarantino did with WWII in "Inglorious Basterds." But if the film does go ahead, it would be so satisfying to see DiCaprio break from form and do something this potentially fun and deranged. The scheduling might not work out though, since "Django" is supposed to begin shooting in the fall, and DiCaprio might not be done with "Gatsby" in time.
Moving on, Deadline reported last month that Clint Eastwood wants DiCaprio as the male lead in "A Star is Born," opposite Beyoncé. At first glance this doesn't look too different from some of DiCaprio's other domestic dramas like "Revolutionary Road." "A Star is Born" in all its other incarnations pairs the ascent of the leading lady's career with the decline of her leading man's. So we can expect DiCaprio's character to fall into the misery of alcoholism, unemployment, and depression by the end of the movie. On the other hand, this is without a doubt a romantic lead role, and DiCaprio hasn't played one of those in years. That means he'll spend of a good chunk of the story actually doing the happy falling-in-love part that "Revolutionary Road" skipped, before he goes into all the angst and tragedy. A quick note - some other sources have postulated that since "A Star is Born" is a musical, DiCaprio might be called upon to sing alongside Beyoncé, but I'm doubtful. His character didn't sing in the first two versions, and only did in the 1976 one because they had Kris Kristofferson.
Beyond that, we move into more speculative territory. "The Wolf of Wall Street" with Ridley Scott is still inching forward, which would put DiCaprio back in a power suit. Michael Mann is apparently trying to get him onboard for "Gold," a contemporary thriller. And after four consecutive films together, a re-teaming of DiCaprio and Martin Scorsese is just a matter of time. However, my hope is that DiCaprio's horizons will broaden a bit and he'll try to do more adventurous stuff in the future too. Otherwise, it would be kind of a shame if he's stuck in this narrow category of heavy dramatic lead parts forever. The old school stars like Gary Cooper, Jimmy Stewart, and James Cagney may be known for certain types of roles, but they played everything. Hell, De Niro has been headlining comedies for the past ten years.
So why not DiCaprio in a squirrely indie dramedy? Or a musical? Or, heck, a superhero film? Maybe not as the hero, but wouldn't he make a great villain? Here's hoping that DiCaprio will take the chance to stretch a bit in 2012, and maybe even break out of that rut.
---
This may change in 2012. Right now Leonardo DiCaprio is finishing up a J. Edgar Hoover biopic with Clint Eastwood, which should reach screens by the end of the year. Then he'll head to Australia to play the title role in "The Great Gatsby" for Baz Luhrmann. J. Edgar Hoover and Jay Gatsby should be great fodder for interesting performances, and might even put him in awards contention again. But what intrigues me are the roles that might come after that, which DiCaprio is currently circling.
First there's Calvin Candie, the villainous plantation owner in Quentin Tarantino's "Django Unchained." According to the synopsis over at Indie Wire, Candie is an eccentric Francophile who insists on being addressed as "Monsieur," owns a seedy club called Candyland, and also deals in "mandingo fighting slaves." We're not just talking about a villain here, but a wildly over-the-top Tarantino villain with an extra helping of shlock. You couldn't ask for a better departure from DiCaprio's recent string of intense, gloomy leading men. I'm not sold on "Django Unchained" yet, and have deep reservations about some of the content that's supposed to be in it, especially after what Tarantino did with WWII in "Inglorious Basterds." But if the film does go ahead, it would be so satisfying to see DiCaprio break from form and do something this potentially fun and deranged. The scheduling might not work out though, since "Django" is supposed to begin shooting in the fall, and DiCaprio might not be done with "Gatsby" in time.
Moving on, Deadline reported last month that Clint Eastwood wants DiCaprio as the male lead in "A Star is Born," opposite Beyoncé. At first glance this doesn't look too different from some of DiCaprio's other domestic dramas like "Revolutionary Road." "A Star is Born" in all its other incarnations pairs the ascent of the leading lady's career with the decline of her leading man's. So we can expect DiCaprio's character to fall into the misery of alcoholism, unemployment, and depression by the end of the movie. On the other hand, this is without a doubt a romantic lead role, and DiCaprio hasn't played one of those in years. That means he'll spend of a good chunk of the story actually doing the happy falling-in-love part that "Revolutionary Road" skipped, before he goes into all the angst and tragedy. A quick note - some other sources have postulated that since "A Star is Born" is a musical, DiCaprio might be called upon to sing alongside Beyoncé, but I'm doubtful. His character didn't sing in the first two versions, and only did in the 1976 one because they had Kris Kristofferson.
Beyond that, we move into more speculative territory. "The Wolf of Wall Street" with Ridley Scott is still inching forward, which would put DiCaprio back in a power suit. Michael Mann is apparently trying to get him onboard for "Gold," a contemporary thriller. And after four consecutive films together, a re-teaming of DiCaprio and Martin Scorsese is just a matter of time. However, my hope is that DiCaprio's horizons will broaden a bit and he'll try to do more adventurous stuff in the future too. Otherwise, it would be kind of a shame if he's stuck in this narrow category of heavy dramatic lead parts forever. The old school stars like Gary Cooper, Jimmy Stewart, and James Cagney may be known for certain types of roles, but they played everything. Hell, De Niro has been headlining comedies for the past ten years.
So why not DiCaprio in a squirrely indie dramedy? Or a musical? Or, heck, a superhero film? Maybe not as the hero, but wouldn't he make a great villain? Here's hoping that DiCaprio will take the chance to stretch a bit in 2012, and maybe even break out of that rut.
---
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Toughing Out "Twin Peaks"
So after posting about the "Twin Peaks" pilot a few weeks ago, I watched the other twenty-nine episodes and came out with very mixed feelings about the whole series. "Twin Peaks" can be described as a combination of a soap opera and a crime drama, with some supernatural elements, bizarre humor, satire, and occasional horror in the mix. Very quickly the balance tilts toward soap opera, and the murder mystery at the heart of the series becomes only one storyline among many. I have no great love for soap operas, and tend to get frustrated quickly with the stereotypical plots based on characters having a multiplicity of affairs, unlikely plot twists like evil doubles and amnesia, and the good old game of "Who's the Father?" "Twin Peaks" manages to tackle every single one of these and more.
Twenty-nine episodes of "Twin Peaks" might sound like a lot to get through, but not when you're really only half-watching them. Whenever Special Agent Dale Cooper (Kyle MacLachlan) was onscreen investigating the death of Laura Palmer (Sheryl Lee), I was happily engaged. However, I got fed up with some of the other stories, like the travails of poor waitress Shelley Johnson (Mädchen Amick), married to an abusive jerk named Leo (Eric Da Re), and having an affair with a hunky teenager, Bobby Briggs (Dana Ashbrook). Shelley had my sympathies at first, but not after it became apparent that she really had awful taste in men and was too much of a featherbrain to extricate herself from any of the fixes she got herself into. Similarly, the super-strong, super-sensitive, one-eyed Nadine (Wendy Robie) was a fun running joke at first, but then she got amnesia and thought she was a teenager again, which led to her re-enrollment in high school. And there was also the endless saga of the lovely widow Josie Packard (Joan Chen), lover of Sheriff Harry S. Truman (Michael Ontkean), whose convoluted power-struggles with her sister-in-law Catherine Martell (Piper Laurie) resulted in a tragic and rather awkwardly handled downfall.
I think, of all the side characters, the only one I was really rooting for most of the time was Audrey Horne (Sherilyn Fenn), devious daughter of the local, slimy business tycoon Ben Horne (Richard Beymer). Audrey was initially set up as a villain in the pilot, who greets the news of Laura's death with a disturbing look of glee that would seem to reflect deeper personality flaws. But soon after, harboring a fierce crush on Agent Cooper, Audrey infiltrates a sleazy gentleman's club to try and help with the investigation, getting herself into deep, deep trouble. Her sharp mind and sharper tongue made her a lot more fun to watch than the trio of teenagers also looking into Laura's death - brooding good-girl Donna Hayward (Lara Flynn Boyle), Laura's boyfriend James Hurley (James Marshall), and Laura's cousin Maddy, who looks exactly like Laura and is also played by Sheryl Lee. Many of the minor, more unconventional characters like Major Garland Briggs (Don S. Davis), Agent Albert Rosenfield (Miguel Ferrer), Deputy Andy Brennan (Harry Goaz), and the beloved Log Lady (Catherine E. Coulson) turned out to be the most memorable.
The longer the show went on the more repetitive it got, like the Angelo Badalamenti score that seemed so moodily strange and interesting in the pilot, but started getting on my nerves toward the end. I remember a great, creepy shot of a streetlight that was used in one of the very early episodes, but got steadily less effective each time it popped up again. Much of this was due to the fact that "Twin Peaks" was made way back in 1990, and the production values for television simply weren't up to the level of what they are today. I'm sure it was one of the more impressive-looking shows of its time, from the intentionally retro set and costume design to the inclusion of a lot of fun little visual details - keep and eye on those donuts. But after twenty years, it too often looks exactly like the early-90s soaps it was meant to skewer. In addition, there was no small amount of studio meddling. David Lynch has stated in interviews that revealing the identity of Laura Palmer's killer in the second season came about only at the express orders of the studio, and may have lead to the show's early demise. I'm not so sure. The leisurely pace and constant digressions were becoming issues for me long before the truth about the murder emerged. The resolution of the Laura Palmer investigation and and the new storyline that was rolled out afterwards actually added some much-needed momentum to a meandering plot.
What kept me watching "Twin Peaks," though, was what people tend to remember the show for - the bizarre supernatural elements. The fact that there were these otherworldly, intangible characters running around like MIKE (Al Strobel) and BOB (Frank Silva), was utterly unique. I can see why "The X-Files" was often compared to "Twin Peaks," because both had lead FBI agent characters who had to take things like prophetic logs, surreal dreams, black magic, and possession by evil spirits absolutely seriously. The whole mythology of the Black Lodge, the White Lodge, and the Red Room is the most coherent explanation David Lynch has ever given us regarding the nature of good and evil, life and death, and the things beyond, that come up in his work so often. Thus, it provides an irresistible clue to interpreting some of Lynch's later films like "Lost Highway" and "Mulholland Drive." No wonder people have been puzzling over the trippy Red Room sequences for years. Oh, and the backwards-speaking dwarf (Michael J. Anderson) and the cryptic Giant (Carel Struyken)? Awesome.
I wish these darker, more interesting ideas hadn't been used so sparingly in "Twin Peaks." It often felt like whole episodes were swallowed up by leaden love triangles and small-scale local intrigues, with only a bit of fancy camera work or a bizarre visual to remind us we were watching "Twin Peaks." Did we really have to see a whole comedic subplot about Deputy Andy's rivalry with clothing salesman Dick Tremayne (Ian Buchanan) for the affections of receptionist Lucy Moran (Kimmy Robertson)? I actually liked the quieter romance of Big Ed Hurley (Everett McGill) and Norma Jennings (Peggy Lipton), except that the third point in their triangle was crazy Nadine. Or maybe it was just because all these romances seemed to follow the conventional soap opera norms of the time. Everyone was shallow and prone to jealousy, men often flew into fits of violent, animalistic rage, and the women, aside from Audrey and Catherine, were too often passive or self-deluded. But then, the result of all of this was that a lot of attractive young women got victimized by older, desperate men, a theme that recurs in "Twin Peaks" again and again, most prominently with Laura Palmer herself. If the show had gone on longer, maybe the creators could have gone further with this idea - but well, bygones.
The good parts of "Twin Peaks" are worth sitting through the weaker material to see, and I'm glad I stuck it out all the way to the end of the series. In the last handful of episodes familiar faces like David Duchovny, David Warner, Heather Graham, Billy Zane, and David Lynch himself show up to play recurring characters. The cliffhanger at the end of the second season is a real shocker, and I wish we could have seen a resolution, even though I know deep down it was never really that kind of show. There is a follow-up film, "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me," that I plan to track down soon. It's a prequel to the events of the series, so I know there won't be many answers forthcoming. Hopefully though, in a big screen format, free from the constraints of prime time television, David Lynch might be able to at least flesh out the story a little better. So many of the more unsavory parts of Laura Palmer's last days were mentioned in passing but left ofscreen - the drug use, the implied sex addiction, and whatever was going on with her parents, Leland (Ray Wise) and Sarah (Grace Zabriskie). Her story could easily benefit from being told on film.
In the end, "Twin Peaks" more than deserves its cult status and its place in popular culture. I've honestly never seen anything like it, aside from parts of Lynch's own movies. The television format helped in some ways, affording the creators more time in which to build up the story and explore a wider universe of different characters, but also hampered it in others. I remain intrigued, but also more than a little unsatisfied with "Twin Peaks." So many unanswered questions remain. Would the show have come off better if it had been a more limited miniseries? If it had been made in the current cable television Renaissance? If audiences hadn't lost interest in "Twin Peaks" as quickly as they became enamored with it? If we had never learned who killed Laura Palmer?
Hmmm... has anyone heard from that log lately?
---
Twenty-nine episodes of "Twin Peaks" might sound like a lot to get through, but not when you're really only half-watching them. Whenever Special Agent Dale Cooper (Kyle MacLachlan) was onscreen investigating the death of Laura Palmer (Sheryl Lee), I was happily engaged. However, I got fed up with some of the other stories, like the travails of poor waitress Shelley Johnson (Mädchen Amick), married to an abusive jerk named Leo (Eric Da Re), and having an affair with a hunky teenager, Bobby Briggs (Dana Ashbrook). Shelley had my sympathies at first, but not after it became apparent that she really had awful taste in men and was too much of a featherbrain to extricate herself from any of the fixes she got herself into. Similarly, the super-strong, super-sensitive, one-eyed Nadine (Wendy Robie) was a fun running joke at first, but then she got amnesia and thought she was a teenager again, which led to her re-enrollment in high school. And there was also the endless saga of the lovely widow Josie Packard (Joan Chen), lover of Sheriff Harry S. Truman (Michael Ontkean), whose convoluted power-struggles with her sister-in-law Catherine Martell (Piper Laurie) resulted in a tragic and rather awkwardly handled downfall.
I think, of all the side characters, the only one I was really rooting for most of the time was Audrey Horne (Sherilyn Fenn), devious daughter of the local, slimy business tycoon Ben Horne (Richard Beymer). Audrey was initially set up as a villain in the pilot, who greets the news of Laura's death with a disturbing look of glee that would seem to reflect deeper personality flaws. But soon after, harboring a fierce crush on Agent Cooper, Audrey infiltrates a sleazy gentleman's club to try and help with the investigation, getting herself into deep, deep trouble. Her sharp mind and sharper tongue made her a lot more fun to watch than the trio of teenagers also looking into Laura's death - brooding good-girl Donna Hayward (Lara Flynn Boyle), Laura's boyfriend James Hurley (James Marshall), and Laura's cousin Maddy, who looks exactly like Laura and is also played by Sheryl Lee. Many of the minor, more unconventional characters like Major Garland Briggs (Don S. Davis), Agent Albert Rosenfield (Miguel Ferrer), Deputy Andy Brennan (Harry Goaz), and the beloved Log Lady (Catherine E. Coulson) turned out to be the most memorable.
The longer the show went on the more repetitive it got, like the Angelo Badalamenti score that seemed so moodily strange and interesting in the pilot, but started getting on my nerves toward the end. I remember a great, creepy shot of a streetlight that was used in one of the very early episodes, but got steadily less effective each time it popped up again. Much of this was due to the fact that "Twin Peaks" was made way back in 1990, and the production values for television simply weren't up to the level of what they are today. I'm sure it was one of the more impressive-looking shows of its time, from the intentionally retro set and costume design to the inclusion of a lot of fun little visual details - keep and eye on those donuts. But after twenty years, it too often looks exactly like the early-90s soaps it was meant to skewer. In addition, there was no small amount of studio meddling. David Lynch has stated in interviews that revealing the identity of Laura Palmer's killer in the second season came about only at the express orders of the studio, and may have lead to the show's early demise. I'm not so sure. The leisurely pace and constant digressions were becoming issues for me long before the truth about the murder emerged. The resolution of the Laura Palmer investigation and and the new storyline that was rolled out afterwards actually added some much-needed momentum to a meandering plot.
What kept me watching "Twin Peaks," though, was what people tend to remember the show for - the bizarre supernatural elements. The fact that there were these otherworldly, intangible characters running around like MIKE (Al Strobel) and BOB (Frank Silva), was utterly unique. I can see why "The X-Files" was often compared to "Twin Peaks," because both had lead FBI agent characters who had to take things like prophetic logs, surreal dreams, black magic, and possession by evil spirits absolutely seriously. The whole mythology of the Black Lodge, the White Lodge, and the Red Room is the most coherent explanation David Lynch has ever given us regarding the nature of good and evil, life and death, and the things beyond, that come up in his work so often. Thus, it provides an irresistible clue to interpreting some of Lynch's later films like "Lost Highway" and "Mulholland Drive." No wonder people have been puzzling over the trippy Red Room sequences for years. Oh, and the backwards-speaking dwarf (Michael J. Anderson) and the cryptic Giant (Carel Struyken)? Awesome.
I wish these darker, more interesting ideas hadn't been used so sparingly in "Twin Peaks." It often felt like whole episodes were swallowed up by leaden love triangles and small-scale local intrigues, with only a bit of fancy camera work or a bizarre visual to remind us we were watching "Twin Peaks." Did we really have to see a whole comedic subplot about Deputy Andy's rivalry with clothing salesman Dick Tremayne (Ian Buchanan) for the affections of receptionist Lucy Moran (Kimmy Robertson)? I actually liked the quieter romance of Big Ed Hurley (Everett McGill) and Norma Jennings (Peggy Lipton), except that the third point in their triangle was crazy Nadine. Or maybe it was just because all these romances seemed to follow the conventional soap opera norms of the time. Everyone was shallow and prone to jealousy, men often flew into fits of violent, animalistic rage, and the women, aside from Audrey and Catherine, were too often passive or self-deluded. But then, the result of all of this was that a lot of attractive young women got victimized by older, desperate men, a theme that recurs in "Twin Peaks" again and again, most prominently with Laura Palmer herself. If the show had gone on longer, maybe the creators could have gone further with this idea - but well, bygones.
The good parts of "Twin Peaks" are worth sitting through the weaker material to see, and I'm glad I stuck it out all the way to the end of the series. In the last handful of episodes familiar faces like David Duchovny, David Warner, Heather Graham, Billy Zane, and David Lynch himself show up to play recurring characters. The cliffhanger at the end of the second season is a real shocker, and I wish we could have seen a resolution, even though I know deep down it was never really that kind of show. There is a follow-up film, "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me," that I plan to track down soon. It's a prequel to the events of the series, so I know there won't be many answers forthcoming. Hopefully though, in a big screen format, free from the constraints of prime time television, David Lynch might be able to at least flesh out the story a little better. So many of the more unsavory parts of Laura Palmer's last days were mentioned in passing but left ofscreen - the drug use, the implied sex addiction, and whatever was going on with her parents, Leland (Ray Wise) and Sarah (Grace Zabriskie). Her story could easily benefit from being told on film.
In the end, "Twin Peaks" more than deserves its cult status and its place in popular culture. I've honestly never seen anything like it, aside from parts of Lynch's own movies. The television format helped in some ways, affording the creators more time in which to build up the story and explore a wider universe of different characters, but also hampered it in others. I remain intrigued, but also more than a little unsatisfied with "Twin Peaks." So many unanswered questions remain. Would the show have come off better if it had been a more limited miniseries? If it had been made in the current cable television Renaissance? If audiences hadn't lost interest in "Twin Peaks" as quickly as they became enamored with it? If we had never learned who killed Laura Palmer?
Hmmm... has anyone heard from that log lately?
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
