I can't imagine television without "I Love Lucy." Even after all the other reruns of black and white shows disappeared from the airwaves, there was "Lucy," still playing in the same late morning slot on my local syndicated station the last time I was home sick. CBS will be airing a colorized version of the "I Love Lucy" Christmas special in a few weeks, but I can't wrap my head around the thought of the world's most famous redhead in color. So, this month's list is being dedicated to Lucy and one of TV's most fundamental sitcoms. As always, entries are unranked and presented in order of airdate.
The Diet - Lucy always wants to be part of bandstand leader Ricky's musical shows down at the club. Ricky always says no. However, in this episode Lucy gets awfully close to victory. Ricky makes a deal with her - if she can fit into a size twelve costume, and she can be part of the act. So Lucy crash diets and hits the steam room. The "Cuban Pete" number that they perform together at the finale is still one of my favorites.
The Ballet - Lucy again tries to be part of Ricky's new show, and learning that they're looking for a ballet dancer and burlesque comic, takes lessons for each. The ballet lesson portion of the show is a lot of fun, but the burlesque comedy routine is gold. "Slowly, I turned," existed long before "I Love Lucy," but was it ever deployed so well? The final act where balllet and burlesque clash is among the funniest moments in the show's run.
Lucy Does a TV Commercial - Still hoping to break into show business, Lucy tries a different approach. She wins the part of television pitch girl for a new health tonic called Vitameatavegamin. Of course, the main ingredient is alcohol. When it comes time to shoot the commercial, the tongue-twister name and awful taste cause Lucy to ruin take after take until the inevitable happens. As with the best "Lucy" gags, it's all in the execution.
Job Switching - Possibly the most famous "I Love Lucy" episode of all time. The men and the women clash about who has it harder, prompting Lucy and Ethel to try their hand at breadwinning while Ricky and Fred mind house. The men certainly contribute their share of the laughs with their domestic disasters, but nothing can top the immortal scene where Lucy and Ethel go to work wrapping chocolates at a candy factory.
Lucy Is Enceinte - You couldn't even say the word "pregnant" on television back in 1952, but the decision was made to work Lucille Ball's pregnancy into the show, so "I Love Lucy" broke all kinds of new ground with the Little Ricky storyline. However, the best part is how Lucy decides to break the news to Ricky, after trying and failing several times using more conventional tactics. It's easily my favorite Ricky Ricardo performance.
Lucy's Last Birthday - Lucy feels neglected after it seems that nobody remembered her birthday. Of course, Ricky and all her friends are planning a big surprise, but Lucy is so hurt that she joins up with a bunch of similar mopes called the Friends of the Friendless. The theme song gets lyrics as Ricky serenades his wife, and Lucy learns she's appreciated after all. Like most episodes, the story's simple but full of heart.
Mr. and Mrs. TV Show - Product placement isn't a recent phenomenon, but has been with television since nearly the beginning. In fact, shows created to shill products are satirized mercilessly in this episode, where the Ricardos are recruited to star in their own program, where the content is little more than advertisements for their department store sponsor. Of course, with Lucy being Lucy, that doesn't stay true for very long.
Lucy's Italian Movie - Much of the later seasons of "I Love Lucy" were taken up with trips out to Hollywood to meet famous stars and on the Ricardos' international travels. The most memorable of these was "Lucy's Italian Movie," the famous episode that puts Lucy in a wine makers' grape-stomping vat with a feisty Italian named Teresa during the Italian leg of their European tour. The grape fight always looked like so much fun.
The Ricardos Visit Cuba - We finally get to meet Ricky's family when the Ricardos travel to Cuba, and Lucy's very nervous about making a good impression on her in-laws. In typical Lucy fashion, she gets into some spectacular bungles, my favorite involving cross-dressing and cigar-rolling. In the end, it's Little Ricky who helps to mends fences, thanks to the most adorable musical number that the show ever produced.
Little Ricky's School Pageant - This is one of the show's silliest and most indulgent episodes, pretty much designed to get the cast into ridiculous fairy-tale costumes, but I can't resist. The Ricardos and the Mertzes take part in Little Ricky's school pageant, "The Enchanted Forest" which casts Ethel as a fairy, Fred as a frog, Ricky as a tree, and Lucy as a broomstick-riding witch.
---
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Voice-Overs, Motion Capture, and the Oscars
Many "Lord of the Rings" fans have long championed the notion that Andy Serkis, the actor who provides the motion capture performance and voice of Gollum, should have been seriously considered for Academy Awards and other honors for his work on the Tolkein trilogy. However, the Academy has traditionally avoided recognizing anything short of a full onscreen performance by an actor, though plenty of other smaller awards have. The Emmy Awards and the Annies, the animation industry's own awards, have categories recognizing voice-over performances. However, the only time I've heard of a voice-only performance being seriously considered for honors alongside a traditional one was the time Eddie Murphy was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor BAFTA Award for playing Donkey in the first "Shrek" movie. BAFTA is the British Academy of Film and Television Arts.
This year the controversy has arisen again, thanks to the well-received performance of Scarlett Johansson in Spike Jonze's "Her," where she voices a Siri-like computer operating system that they film's hapless hero falls in love with. Johnasson never appears on screen, but her character is fully formed, entirely through her vocal performance. The Academy hasn't said anything definitive one way or another about whether Johansson is eligible for a nomination, but the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, who put on the Golden Globes, have ruled that she's out of contention. The "Her" team has appealed the decision on her behalf, still pending at the time of writing. However, her prospects don't look very good. Even if she did secure nominations, she would surely be at a disadvantage with only a vocal performance being measured up against traditional performances from the other actresses.
My stance is that voice-only performances should be eligible, even if it's highly unlikely that they'd ever be able to be truly competitive. Others awards commentators have pointed out that nobody has any problems recognizing performances from silent films, or mute performances, or performances in different languages. A vocal performance is undeniably a performance that requires skill and talent, and should be recognized as such. A separate category for voice-only performances would be ideal, but it's not feasible for the bigger award shows, so they should be covered by the existing performance categories. Out of all the different types of specialized performances and artistry people have argued ought to get their own Oscar categories - motion capture, stunt work, performances by animals and children, animators, and puppeteers - voice-over work is one of the easiest to parse.
It's not so easy, for instance, to figure out how best to recognize Andy Serkis for his work as Gollum. Scarlett Johansson was entirely responsible for her own performance in "Her," but Gollum was the product not just of Serkis, but of hundreds of unseen animators and VFX artists and technicians behind the scenes who helped to turn that motion-capture performance into the digital character who appeared onscreen. Motion-capture technology hasn't developed to the point where an actor can simply put on the ping-pong ball sensors, and a fully finished, movie-ready performance is generated. These performances have to be "tweaked" and "plussed" endlessly. In some cases, the motion capture is really just a guide for animators who have to deviate considerably from the actor's performance to get something that looks right.
So do we credit the people who worked behind the scenes alongside the motion capture performer? Do we try to somehow separate out the performance from all the effects work that enhanced it? If so, how do you compare that to a traditional performance by a non-enhanced actor? And is it really fair to single out the actor when he was part of a team of people who all contributed to the performance? These kinds of basic categorization issues are probably why recognizing motion capture performances is so hard, and mostly hasn't caught on. Notably the Broadcast Film Critics Association Award has a Best Digital Acting Performance, and the MTV Movie Awards have Best Virtual Performance, both of which Serkis has won, but others seem content putting Serkis's performances in the usual acting categories.
It's also important to remember that the Academy does go out of its way at times to recognize individuals that it feels are deserving of kudos, but don't fit into its rigid categories. Special Oscars and Honorary Oscars have gone to all kinds of different artists, including puppeteers, stunt men, choreographers, animators, makeup artists (before their category was instituted), historian Kevin Brownlow, and scholckmeister Roger Corman. I'm willing to bet that if Andy Serkis keeps up the good work and remains popular, the Academy isn't going to let him go unrecognized in the long run, especially if motion capture performances become more important and prominent in the years to come.
As for Scarlett Johansson, I don't think this is her year, but she'll have plenty of chances at a statuette in the future, and those chances will undeniably be better if she appears onscreen.
---
This year the controversy has arisen again, thanks to the well-received performance of Scarlett Johansson in Spike Jonze's "Her," where she voices a Siri-like computer operating system that they film's hapless hero falls in love with. Johnasson never appears on screen, but her character is fully formed, entirely through her vocal performance. The Academy hasn't said anything definitive one way or another about whether Johansson is eligible for a nomination, but the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, who put on the Golden Globes, have ruled that she's out of contention. The "Her" team has appealed the decision on her behalf, still pending at the time of writing. However, her prospects don't look very good. Even if she did secure nominations, she would surely be at a disadvantage with only a vocal performance being measured up against traditional performances from the other actresses.
My stance is that voice-only performances should be eligible, even if it's highly unlikely that they'd ever be able to be truly competitive. Others awards commentators have pointed out that nobody has any problems recognizing performances from silent films, or mute performances, or performances in different languages. A vocal performance is undeniably a performance that requires skill and talent, and should be recognized as such. A separate category for voice-only performances would be ideal, but it's not feasible for the bigger award shows, so they should be covered by the existing performance categories. Out of all the different types of specialized performances and artistry people have argued ought to get their own Oscar categories - motion capture, stunt work, performances by animals and children, animators, and puppeteers - voice-over work is one of the easiest to parse.
It's not so easy, for instance, to figure out how best to recognize Andy Serkis for his work as Gollum. Scarlett Johansson was entirely responsible for her own performance in "Her," but Gollum was the product not just of Serkis, but of hundreds of unseen animators and VFX artists and technicians behind the scenes who helped to turn that motion-capture performance into the digital character who appeared onscreen. Motion-capture technology hasn't developed to the point where an actor can simply put on the ping-pong ball sensors, and a fully finished, movie-ready performance is generated. These performances have to be "tweaked" and "plussed" endlessly. In some cases, the motion capture is really just a guide for animators who have to deviate considerably from the actor's performance to get something that looks right.
So do we credit the people who worked behind the scenes alongside the motion capture performer? Do we try to somehow separate out the performance from all the effects work that enhanced it? If so, how do you compare that to a traditional performance by a non-enhanced actor? And is it really fair to single out the actor when he was part of a team of people who all contributed to the performance? These kinds of basic categorization issues are probably why recognizing motion capture performances is so hard, and mostly hasn't caught on. Notably the Broadcast Film Critics Association Award has a Best Digital Acting Performance, and the MTV Movie Awards have Best Virtual Performance, both of which Serkis has won, but others seem content putting Serkis's performances in the usual acting categories.
It's also important to remember that the Academy does go out of its way at times to recognize individuals that it feels are deserving of kudos, but don't fit into its rigid categories. Special Oscars and Honorary Oscars have gone to all kinds of different artists, including puppeteers, stunt men, choreographers, animators, makeup artists (before their category was instituted), historian Kevin Brownlow, and scholckmeister Roger Corman. I'm willing to bet that if Andy Serkis keeps up the good work and remains popular, the Academy isn't going to let him go unrecognized in the long run, especially if motion capture performances become more important and prominent in the years to come.
As for Scarlett Johansson, I don't think this is her year, but she'll have plenty of chances at a statuette in the future, and those chances will undeniably be better if she appears onscreen.
---
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
TV's "Oz" Overload
In the television world it's development season, which means that there's been a lot of chatter about a lot of projects, most of which are never going to make it to air. This year, we have all the usual suspects - remakes, adaptations of movies and books, spinoffs, and big star-driven vehicles. However, there's one particular piece of source material that it seems like everyone is jumping on: "The Wizard of Oz." According to Deadline, there are currently no less than five potential "Oz" adaptations in the works, none of them remotely similar to the original L.Frank Baum novel or the MGM theatrical musical. Instead, they're "reimaginings" and "revisionist" versions, intended to play on the audience's familiarity with a children's story that has become as universal as most fairy tales. However, looking at how each project is trying to tackle "Oz" provides some interesting insights on the creative process and the current trends in television.
Emerald City - An NBC drama described as a dark take on the "Oz" story similar to "Game Of Thrones," without the HBO content, of course. It's being put together by Matt Arnold, the showrunner of the recent "Siberia," for Universal Television. I'm the most interested in this one, because it's been suggested that it will actually look beyond the original "Wonderful Wizard of Oz," to some of the material in the other thirteen "Oz" books that L. Frank Baum wrote in the "Oz" series. One of the few real successes for NBC lately has been its steady Friday night performer "Grimm," but they've had mixed results with other genre properties like "Hannibal" and "Dracula." "Emerald City" is pretty amorphous at the moment - we don't know when it's set, if there will be many fantasy elements, or if it's going to be a limited series or a proper serial. Invoking "Game of Thrones" suggests some ambitions, but then again, all the new fantasy dramas are invoking "Game of Thrones."
Dorothy - A CBS medical drama from the executive producers of "Elementary." This looks to be the farthest removed from the original story, with modern day characters loosely inspired by the "Oz" characters, and incorporating a few similar themes. Despite the possibility of retaining a few fantasy flourishes, I suspect that "Dorothy" is going to end up looking an awful lot like "Grey's Anatomy" or "Private Practice," except all the doctors have punny names. Our heroine will surely be stuck trying to choose between potential beaus who lack in smarts, heart, and courage, respectively. There's nothing wrong with sticking to a formula - procedurals may be unglamorous, but they get ratings, and medical soaps are tried and true performers. However, of all the "Oz" projects in the works, it's the most obviously a gimmick here. Sherlock was a detective, so a mystery series makes sense. Where's the connection between the "Wizard of Oz" and doctors in love triangles?
Dorothy Must Die - The CW is adapting Danielle Paige's young adult novel that turns the original "Wonderful Wizard of Oz" on its head. In this semi-sequel, Dorothy and her friends have become power-hungry villains that our young heroine must defeat in order to save The Land of Oz. The Wicked Witch of the West? Not so wicked, as it turns out. Tim Kring and several "Heroes" vets are involved in the development of this one. I'm rooting for it because while it's giving us mostly evil versions of all our favorite "Oz" characters, at least we know this one is going to be a straight action fantasy series that actually takes place in the Land of Oz. The CW is also much friendlier to genre projects than most, and this sounds like exactly the kind of story that would appeal to their younger-skewing audience. I'm worried about CW's notorious penchant for teen soapiness invading the works, but for now I'm focusing on the positive. Evil power-mad Dorothy takes over Oz. Neat.
Red Brick Road - Artist Rob Prior and writer Timm Schlattman of "Dexter" fame are bringing their revisionist "Oz" concept to Warner Horizon and Lifetime, drawing more iffy comparisons to "Game of Thrones." This time Dorothy is headed down the red brick road that we glimpsed in the "Wizard of Oz" movie instead of the yellow one, which promises to take her to darker and more forbidding places. As a fan of the original Oz books, I have to point out that the red brick road actually leads to Quadling Country and likely Glinda the Good's place, but where would the fun be in that? There's some interesting concept art for "Red Brick Road" floating around the internet featuring a redheaded Dorothy wielding a sword, and high fantasy versions of the Tin Man and the Wicked Witch. Frankly, the part I'm the most skeptical about is Lifetime's involvement. I know they've embraced high concept shows recently, but I haven't seen them do anything this high concept.
Warriors of Oz - "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" director Timur Bekmambetov has this set up as a miniseries over at Syfy. "Warriors" will introduce us to a new version of the "Wizard of Oz" story, where our hero travels through a post-apocalyptic version of the Land of Oz with three companions named - and I'm not kidding here - Brainless, Heartless, and Coward, on his quest to defeat the evil Wizard. Yep, this one has a male lead, and seems oddly male-centric. It's too early to say anything more than that for now, but this is certainly shaping up to be the least interesting of the five "Oz" projects so far. Bekmambetov's films tend to be flashy, but fairly shallow action flicks, and I expect this to be more of the same. This isn't the first time Syfy has delved into the "Oz" universe. They were also responsible for the last attempt at an edgy "Oz" miniseries, "Tin Man," in 2007.
---
Emerald City - An NBC drama described as a dark take on the "Oz" story similar to "Game Of Thrones," without the HBO content, of course. It's being put together by Matt Arnold, the showrunner of the recent "Siberia," for Universal Television. I'm the most interested in this one, because it's been suggested that it will actually look beyond the original "Wonderful Wizard of Oz," to some of the material in the other thirteen "Oz" books that L. Frank Baum wrote in the "Oz" series. One of the few real successes for NBC lately has been its steady Friday night performer "Grimm," but they've had mixed results with other genre properties like "Hannibal" and "Dracula." "Emerald City" is pretty amorphous at the moment - we don't know when it's set, if there will be many fantasy elements, or if it's going to be a limited series or a proper serial. Invoking "Game of Thrones" suggests some ambitions, but then again, all the new fantasy dramas are invoking "Game of Thrones."
Dorothy - A CBS medical drama from the executive producers of "Elementary." This looks to be the farthest removed from the original story, with modern day characters loosely inspired by the "Oz" characters, and incorporating a few similar themes. Despite the possibility of retaining a few fantasy flourishes, I suspect that "Dorothy" is going to end up looking an awful lot like "Grey's Anatomy" or "Private Practice," except all the doctors have punny names. Our heroine will surely be stuck trying to choose between potential beaus who lack in smarts, heart, and courage, respectively. There's nothing wrong with sticking to a formula - procedurals may be unglamorous, but they get ratings, and medical soaps are tried and true performers. However, of all the "Oz" projects in the works, it's the most obviously a gimmick here. Sherlock was a detective, so a mystery series makes sense. Where's the connection between the "Wizard of Oz" and doctors in love triangles?
Dorothy Must Die - The CW is adapting Danielle Paige's young adult novel that turns the original "Wonderful Wizard of Oz" on its head. In this semi-sequel, Dorothy and her friends have become power-hungry villains that our young heroine must defeat in order to save The Land of Oz. The Wicked Witch of the West? Not so wicked, as it turns out. Tim Kring and several "Heroes" vets are involved in the development of this one. I'm rooting for it because while it's giving us mostly evil versions of all our favorite "Oz" characters, at least we know this one is going to be a straight action fantasy series that actually takes place in the Land of Oz. The CW is also much friendlier to genre projects than most, and this sounds like exactly the kind of story that would appeal to their younger-skewing audience. I'm worried about CW's notorious penchant for teen soapiness invading the works, but for now I'm focusing on the positive. Evil power-mad Dorothy takes over Oz. Neat.
Red Brick Road - Artist Rob Prior and writer Timm Schlattman of "Dexter" fame are bringing their revisionist "Oz" concept to Warner Horizon and Lifetime, drawing more iffy comparisons to "Game of Thrones." This time Dorothy is headed down the red brick road that we glimpsed in the "Wizard of Oz" movie instead of the yellow one, which promises to take her to darker and more forbidding places. As a fan of the original Oz books, I have to point out that the red brick road actually leads to Quadling Country and likely Glinda the Good's place, but where would the fun be in that? There's some interesting concept art for "Red Brick Road" floating around the internet featuring a redheaded Dorothy wielding a sword, and high fantasy versions of the Tin Man and the Wicked Witch. Frankly, the part I'm the most skeptical about is Lifetime's involvement. I know they've embraced high concept shows recently, but I haven't seen them do anything this high concept.
Warriors of Oz - "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" director Timur Bekmambetov has this set up as a miniseries over at Syfy. "Warriors" will introduce us to a new version of the "Wizard of Oz" story, where our hero travels through a post-apocalyptic version of the Land of Oz with three companions named - and I'm not kidding here - Brainless, Heartless, and Coward, on his quest to defeat the evil Wizard. Yep, this one has a male lead, and seems oddly male-centric. It's too early to say anything more than that for now, but this is certainly shaping up to be the least interesting of the five "Oz" projects so far. Bekmambetov's films tend to be flashy, but fairly shallow action flicks, and I expect this to be more of the same. This isn't the first time Syfy has delved into the "Oz" universe. They were also responsible for the last attempt at an edgy "Oz" miniseries, "Tin Man," in 2007.
---
Monday, December 2, 2013
Let It Be For Kids
There's some great children's media being produced these days. Cartoons may have been pushed out of Saturday mornings, but Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, and Disney are still running new shows on television, and animated films regularly reap massive box office rewards. Heck, many of the biggest franchises these days are aimed at younger audiences, particularly in the fantasy-action genre. It's no wonder that many of these properties have attracted adult fans.
However, too often I've run across grown-up fans who try to justify watching "Adventure Time" or PIXAR movies by declaring that they're not really for kids. Many creators sneak in elements that only adults would pick up on and understand. Media has often been so rigidly segmented, that some viewers are convinced that anything that appeals to adults must be aimed at adults to some extent. However, there's a pretty big difference between something that appeals to grown-ups and something that is explicitly targeting them.
So let's put things into perspective here. "Adventure Time" is aimed at kids aged 8-12, despite the much older Finn and Jake cosplayers that can usually be spotted at most fan conventions. The recent PIXAR feature "Monsters University" was rated G, putting meaning that its content was specifically tailored to be safe for the under-13 set. Disney's "Frozen" received a PG, but as this Forbes article suggests, there's really not much difference between a G and PG these days. Hasbro's "My Little Pony" occasionally does shout-outs to the Brony herd, but it's still primarily aimed at little girls.
Why am I taking the trouble to point this out? I think there's an inherent value in kids' media being kids' media, especially since so much of it has disappeared from the media landscape in recent years. G-rated commercial films are practically nonexistent now, aside from a few nature documentaries and animated films. There has been a massive scaling back of traditional children's programming on television, with much of it now contained on specific family-oriented cable channels and good old PBS. "Family hour" prime time viewing is all but extinct and I don't think it's coming back. Not only is there less programming available specifically aimed at children, but less for general audiences that is appropriate for children.
It's fine for adults to enjoy children's entertainment. I do myself, frequently. However, denying that it is children's entertainment co-opts it and devalues it to an extent. Movies and television made for kids is too often dismissed as pabulum, as something that by definition can't be as good or as valuable as movies and television for adults. This is nonsense, but it's a common assumption. Young adults in particular are quick to insist that "The Hunger Games" or their favorite imported anime isn't for kids, trying to distance themselves from the perceived stigma. When I was in my teens, I worried for years that I was too old to be watching cartoons. I stopped caring when I hit college age.
Anime is an interesting case because Japanese content standards are very different from American ones, and there are some properties that are indeed intended for adult viewers. However, the vast majority of the shows that become popular in the U.S., particularly the violent action anime like "Dragonball Z," "Fullmetal Alchemist" and "Naruto" are intended for older children and teenagers. They may be dark and dramatic and thrilling on the same level as you'd see in American media for adults, but you just have to look at the ages of the protagonists - twelve to sixteen year-olds - to figure out who the shows are actually meant for.
It's a strange irony that so many properties that we used to consider children's entertainment - superhero films, "Star Wars," and the emerging young adult fantasy genre, are now the biggest blockbuster generators that depend on adult ticket sales. And to make sure those adults feel comfortable showing up at the ticket counter, we've seen young characters aged up, stories get darker and darker, and content push the boundaries of the PG-13 rating. I don't think the most recent Batman or Superman films, with their moody atmosphere and amped up violence, would be appropriate viewing for many of the younger kids who originally read their comic books.
These characters have evolved over time to become more adult, sure, but it seems an awful shame that they've abandoned their original audiences to such an extent, and a little shortsighted to be honest. The reason there is so much nostalgia and demand for these characters is because most fans first encountered them as kids. I'm actually glad that Warners keeps making cartoons for their DC superheroes designed specifically to engage younger children, and Lucas has kept "Star Wars" going through tie-ins like "The Clone Wars." These big franchises aren't going to survive in the long run without their youngest viewers onboard.
---
However, too often I've run across grown-up fans who try to justify watching "Adventure Time" or PIXAR movies by declaring that they're not really for kids. Many creators sneak in elements that only adults would pick up on and understand. Media has often been so rigidly segmented, that some viewers are convinced that anything that appeals to adults must be aimed at adults to some extent. However, there's a pretty big difference between something that appeals to grown-ups and something that is explicitly targeting them.
So let's put things into perspective here. "Adventure Time" is aimed at kids aged 8-12, despite the much older Finn and Jake cosplayers that can usually be spotted at most fan conventions. The recent PIXAR feature "Monsters University" was rated G, putting meaning that its content was specifically tailored to be safe for the under-13 set. Disney's "Frozen" received a PG, but as this Forbes article suggests, there's really not much difference between a G and PG these days. Hasbro's "My Little Pony" occasionally does shout-outs to the Brony herd, but it's still primarily aimed at little girls.
Why am I taking the trouble to point this out? I think there's an inherent value in kids' media being kids' media, especially since so much of it has disappeared from the media landscape in recent years. G-rated commercial films are practically nonexistent now, aside from a few nature documentaries and animated films. There has been a massive scaling back of traditional children's programming on television, with much of it now contained on specific family-oriented cable channels and good old PBS. "Family hour" prime time viewing is all but extinct and I don't think it's coming back. Not only is there less programming available specifically aimed at children, but less for general audiences that is appropriate for children.
It's fine for adults to enjoy children's entertainment. I do myself, frequently. However, denying that it is children's entertainment co-opts it and devalues it to an extent. Movies and television made for kids is too often dismissed as pabulum, as something that by definition can't be as good or as valuable as movies and television for adults. This is nonsense, but it's a common assumption. Young adults in particular are quick to insist that "The Hunger Games" or their favorite imported anime isn't for kids, trying to distance themselves from the perceived stigma. When I was in my teens, I worried for years that I was too old to be watching cartoons. I stopped caring when I hit college age.
Anime is an interesting case because Japanese content standards are very different from American ones, and there are some properties that are indeed intended for adult viewers. However, the vast majority of the shows that become popular in the U.S., particularly the violent action anime like "Dragonball Z," "Fullmetal Alchemist" and "Naruto" are intended for older children and teenagers. They may be dark and dramatic and thrilling on the same level as you'd see in American media for adults, but you just have to look at the ages of the protagonists - twelve to sixteen year-olds - to figure out who the shows are actually meant for.
It's a strange irony that so many properties that we used to consider children's entertainment - superhero films, "Star Wars," and the emerging young adult fantasy genre, are now the biggest blockbuster generators that depend on adult ticket sales. And to make sure those adults feel comfortable showing up at the ticket counter, we've seen young characters aged up, stories get darker and darker, and content push the boundaries of the PG-13 rating. I don't think the most recent Batman or Superman films, with their moody atmosphere and amped up violence, would be appropriate viewing for many of the younger kids who originally read their comic books.
These characters have evolved over time to become more adult, sure, but it seems an awful shame that they've abandoned their original audiences to such an extent, and a little shortsighted to be honest. The reason there is so much nostalgia and demand for these characters is because most fans first encountered them as kids. I'm actually glad that Warners keeps making cartoons for their DC superheroes designed specifically to engage younger children, and Lucas has kept "Star Wars" going through tie-ins like "The Clone Wars." These big franchises aren't going to survive in the long run without their youngest viewers onboard.
---
Sunday, December 1, 2013
A Decade of Depp
Johnny Depp the actor has been around in the public consciousness since 1984, but Johnny Depp the massively popular blockbuster movie star really only emerged in 2003, when he played Captain Jack Sparrow for the first time in the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" film. Sure, he had hits before that, including "Donnie Brasco," "Don Juan DeMarco," and several well-received collaborations with Tim Burton like "Edward Scissorhands" and "Ed Wood," but Depp was more of an acquired taste in the 90s. He was a regular fixture of independent films, and often seemed to pick his projects based on what directors and actors he wanted to work with.
But after Jack Sparrow, Depp's independent films have been few and far between. Sure, there's still a "Public Enemies," a "Rum Diary," or a "Libertine" now and then, but otherwise his resume has been full of big budget family films. Four "Pirates" films with another on the way, "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," and animated films "Rango" and "The Corpse Bride." It was recently announced that he will appear in the upcoming sequel to "Alice in Wonderland" in 2016, even though Tim Burton won't be back to direct it. He's certainly reaped the financial rewards, getting massive paydays for his involvement in most of his Disney projects, but he's also received the most recognition for his work from the industry post-Captain Jack. He's been nominated for Academy Awards three times since 2003, for the first "Pirates," "Finding Neverland," and "Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street." The Golden Globes seem to nominated him for the "Best Actor - Motion Picture Musical or Comedy" category every year by default.
As one of Depp's fans who has been around since the mid-90s, the transition has been a little jarring. It's hard to reconcile the actor who appeared in John Waters and Jim Jarmusch films and let Hunter Thompson shave his head for "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," with the actor who said yes to a fifth "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie. The past ten years certainly hasn't been all bad, but at least when Depp appeared in bombs in the past, they were at least cinematically interesting failures like Sally Potter's "The Man Who Cried," or roman Polanski's "The Ninth Gate." Nowadays the bombs are movies like "Dark Shadows," "The Tourist," and "The Lone Ranger," which it's hard to muster up any defense for. Where ten years ago everyone was a Johnny Depp fan, now his popularity has seriously waned, and his broad performances as larger-than-life characters are all starting to look the same. Many point to his relationships with Disney and Tim Burton as the culprit. Depp has made six films with the Mouse and five with Burton over the past decade. Three more Disney films, including an ensemble part in the "Into the Woods" musical are planned.
To a certain extent, this seems to happen to all popular actors once they hit a certain age. They get older, have kids, and want to make movies that those kids can watch. They gravitate towards easier paychecks and steadier work as their financial obligations pile up. The urge to prove themselves goes away as they hit successful streaks. We saw it happen to Eddie Murphy, to Robert DeNiro, and nearly all the big action stars of the 90s. In many cases, as with DeNiro, as they age they're no longer in a position to play the kinds of roles that made them famous, so they start looking for alternatives. Though we still see him in the occasional crime thriller, Robert DeNiro is now almost entirely a comedic actor now. Murphy, long out of touch with the raw edge of comedy, has essentially become a children's performer. It'll be interesting to see what becomes of Tom Cruise as he ages out of action star roles - though looking at Bruce Willis and Liam Neeson, that may be a while.
Johnny Depp turned fifty this year, and I think he may weather the fallout of declining popularity and advancing age better than most. His early career proves that he is an extremely versatile performer, and a better character actor than a leading man. And after the recent string of high profile bombs, we're going to be seeing him in some riskier projects next - David Knoepp's thriller "Mortdecai" and Wally Pfister's science fiction film "Transcendence." Terry Gilliam recently announced that he's going to make another run at "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote," the movie that Depp famous didn't star in a decade ago, and I sincerely hope that they can try again together.
I still count myself a Johnny Depp fan, though my favorite Depp movies are all from the '90s - "Edward Scissorhands," "Benny & Joon," and "What's Eating Gilbert Grape." I've liked several of his recent films, particularly "The Libertine," and I enjoy Captain Jack Sparrow as much as anyone. However, I can't help but feel that I'm waiting for him to be done with being a movie star so he can go back to being an actor.
---
But after Jack Sparrow, Depp's independent films have been few and far between. Sure, there's still a "Public Enemies," a "Rum Diary," or a "Libertine" now and then, but otherwise his resume has been full of big budget family films. Four "Pirates" films with another on the way, "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," and animated films "Rango" and "The Corpse Bride." It was recently announced that he will appear in the upcoming sequel to "Alice in Wonderland" in 2016, even though Tim Burton won't be back to direct it. He's certainly reaped the financial rewards, getting massive paydays for his involvement in most of his Disney projects, but he's also received the most recognition for his work from the industry post-Captain Jack. He's been nominated for Academy Awards three times since 2003, for the first "Pirates," "Finding Neverland," and "Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street." The Golden Globes seem to nominated him for the "Best Actor - Motion Picture Musical or Comedy" category every year by default.
As one of Depp's fans who has been around since the mid-90s, the transition has been a little jarring. It's hard to reconcile the actor who appeared in John Waters and Jim Jarmusch films and let Hunter Thompson shave his head for "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," with the actor who said yes to a fifth "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie. The past ten years certainly hasn't been all bad, but at least when Depp appeared in bombs in the past, they were at least cinematically interesting failures like Sally Potter's "The Man Who Cried," or roman Polanski's "The Ninth Gate." Nowadays the bombs are movies like "Dark Shadows," "The Tourist," and "The Lone Ranger," which it's hard to muster up any defense for. Where ten years ago everyone was a Johnny Depp fan, now his popularity has seriously waned, and his broad performances as larger-than-life characters are all starting to look the same. Many point to his relationships with Disney and Tim Burton as the culprit. Depp has made six films with the Mouse and five with Burton over the past decade. Three more Disney films, including an ensemble part in the "Into the Woods" musical are planned.
To a certain extent, this seems to happen to all popular actors once they hit a certain age. They get older, have kids, and want to make movies that those kids can watch. They gravitate towards easier paychecks and steadier work as their financial obligations pile up. The urge to prove themselves goes away as they hit successful streaks. We saw it happen to Eddie Murphy, to Robert DeNiro, and nearly all the big action stars of the 90s. In many cases, as with DeNiro, as they age they're no longer in a position to play the kinds of roles that made them famous, so they start looking for alternatives. Though we still see him in the occasional crime thriller, Robert DeNiro is now almost entirely a comedic actor now. Murphy, long out of touch with the raw edge of comedy, has essentially become a children's performer. It'll be interesting to see what becomes of Tom Cruise as he ages out of action star roles - though looking at Bruce Willis and Liam Neeson, that may be a while.
Johnny Depp turned fifty this year, and I think he may weather the fallout of declining popularity and advancing age better than most. His early career proves that he is an extremely versatile performer, and a better character actor than a leading man. And after the recent string of high profile bombs, we're going to be seeing him in some riskier projects next - David Knoepp's thriller "Mortdecai" and Wally Pfister's science fiction film "Transcendence." Terry Gilliam recently announced that he's going to make another run at "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote," the movie that Depp famous didn't star in a decade ago, and I sincerely hope that they can try again together.
I still count myself a Johnny Depp fan, though my favorite Depp movies are all from the '90s - "Edward Scissorhands," "Benny & Joon," and "What's Eating Gilbert Grape." I've liked several of his recent films, particularly "The Libertine," and I enjoy Captain Jack Sparrow as much as anyone. However, I can't help but feel that I'm waiting for him to be done with being a movie star so he can go back to being an actor.
---
Saturday, November 30, 2013
At Sea With "Captain Phillips"
2013 may go down as the year of the survival film, with many of the biggest prestige films of the fall featuring individuals placed in extreme situations. "Captain Phillips" is based on the true life hijacking of the Maersk Alabama cargo ship by Somali pirates in 2009. This is easily the kind of film that could have been turned into a gung-ho, bombastic action fantasy with slick set pieces and black and white morality. Fortunately, the movie was put into the capable hands of Paul Greengrass, former documentary filmmaker, and the director of such films as "United 93" and "Bloody Sunday," as well as the latter two Matt Damon "Bourne" films.
"Captain Phillips" takes us step by step through the hijacking, from the ship and the pirates departing from their respective ports, to the attack on the ship, to the hostage situation that results, and finally to the inevitable resolution. It certainly doesn't lack for intensity and thrills, and the central performance by Tom Hanks as Phillips is a good one. However, what really gives the film its power is the decision to give equal attention and character development to the four hijackers. We first meet Muse (Barkhad Abdi), Bilal (Barkhad Abdirahman), Najee (Faysal Ahmed), and teenager Elmi (Mahat M. Ali) at their village, and get glimpses of their lives. This provides vital context for everything that follows, and much of the film is told from their point of view.
The commitment to a high level of realism is noticeable all throughout the film, and elevates it. Some incidents and much of the dialogue were clearly invented, but the script by Billy Ray is full of technical and military terminology that no one stops to explain. The Somalis all speak English to some degree, but among themselves they converse in Somali, and they do so at length. In your typical action spectacular, the threat of four armed men in a speedboat would seem to be too small, but in "Captain Phillips," it is carefully established that no one on the ship is armed, the shipping company has failed to provide adequate security, the safeguards and procedures to thwart such an attack are limited, and though military aid is eventually dispatched, it takes a long time to get to there. By the time the pirates manage to board the ship, the seriousness of the threat is clear.
The Somali characters were played by actual Somali actors, a key detail that really helps to sell the story. No one is saying that Samuel L. Jackson is not a great actor and wonderfully intimidating, but he could never play the leader of the pirates, Muse, the way that Barkhad Abdi does. We would never be able to experience the same, gradual humanization of the character the way that we do with him. As good as Hanks is, it's Abdi who gives the most memorable performance here, a wonderful mixture of naive optimist, who keeps trying to reassure us that everything will be all right, and world-weary cynic who has been lied to too many times.
The fly-on-the-wall approach puts the viewer in the thick of the action, which makes the tension all the more terrific. However, the director at the helm make a lot of difference. I've seen an awful lot of films with bad shakeycam recently, but Greengrass all but started the trend with the "Bourne" films, and he knows how to use it better than anyone. The camera bobs up and down with the speedboats and the life rafts, peeks through gratings and binoculars, and when the characters are plunged into darkness, so are we. More importantly, it's all very restrained, controlled, and the action remains perfectly coherent. No motion sickness warnings this time.
The Maersk Alabama story was all over the news when it happened, but I suspect that few in the American public knew the details of what went on during the hijacking, aside from the fact that Phillips survived. And surely there can't have been many who knew the fates of the four Somalis, which the film gives equal narrative weight. Cynics might wonder what the point of dramatizing the event in a film would be, and "Captain Phillips" provides a very good answer. It shows you parts of the story in a way that the news reports never could. It demystifies the Captain even as it celebrates him. And it reminds us that the pirates were human beings too.
I'm not particularly inclined to call "Captain Phillips" one of the best films of the year, though I think it's tremendously entertaining, a technically impressive pieces of cinema, and successfully addresses some tricky issues surrounding Somali piracy head on. It's about the best dramatization of the hijacking that we could have hoped for, but at the same time I don't feel I understand what was so compelling about this story to warrant the film being made. The characters are all a little too idealized, and the plotting is often terribly thin. There are a lot of true life stories that I'd have rather seen Paul Greengrass's talents applied to.
---
"Captain Phillips" takes us step by step through the hijacking, from the ship and the pirates departing from their respective ports, to the attack on the ship, to the hostage situation that results, and finally to the inevitable resolution. It certainly doesn't lack for intensity and thrills, and the central performance by Tom Hanks as Phillips is a good one. However, what really gives the film its power is the decision to give equal attention and character development to the four hijackers. We first meet Muse (Barkhad Abdi), Bilal (Barkhad Abdirahman), Najee (Faysal Ahmed), and teenager Elmi (Mahat M. Ali) at their village, and get glimpses of their lives. This provides vital context for everything that follows, and much of the film is told from their point of view.
The commitment to a high level of realism is noticeable all throughout the film, and elevates it. Some incidents and much of the dialogue were clearly invented, but the script by Billy Ray is full of technical and military terminology that no one stops to explain. The Somalis all speak English to some degree, but among themselves they converse in Somali, and they do so at length. In your typical action spectacular, the threat of four armed men in a speedboat would seem to be too small, but in "Captain Phillips," it is carefully established that no one on the ship is armed, the shipping company has failed to provide adequate security, the safeguards and procedures to thwart such an attack are limited, and though military aid is eventually dispatched, it takes a long time to get to there. By the time the pirates manage to board the ship, the seriousness of the threat is clear.
The Somali characters were played by actual Somali actors, a key detail that really helps to sell the story. No one is saying that Samuel L. Jackson is not a great actor and wonderfully intimidating, but he could never play the leader of the pirates, Muse, the way that Barkhad Abdi does. We would never be able to experience the same, gradual humanization of the character the way that we do with him. As good as Hanks is, it's Abdi who gives the most memorable performance here, a wonderful mixture of naive optimist, who keeps trying to reassure us that everything will be all right, and world-weary cynic who has been lied to too many times.
The fly-on-the-wall approach puts the viewer in the thick of the action, which makes the tension all the more terrific. However, the director at the helm make a lot of difference. I've seen an awful lot of films with bad shakeycam recently, but Greengrass all but started the trend with the "Bourne" films, and he knows how to use it better than anyone. The camera bobs up and down with the speedboats and the life rafts, peeks through gratings and binoculars, and when the characters are plunged into darkness, so are we. More importantly, it's all very restrained, controlled, and the action remains perfectly coherent. No motion sickness warnings this time.
The Maersk Alabama story was all over the news when it happened, but I suspect that few in the American public knew the details of what went on during the hijacking, aside from the fact that Phillips survived. And surely there can't have been many who knew the fates of the four Somalis, which the film gives equal narrative weight. Cynics might wonder what the point of dramatizing the event in a film would be, and "Captain Phillips" provides a very good answer. It shows you parts of the story in a way that the news reports never could. It demystifies the Captain even as it celebrates him. And it reminds us that the pirates were human beings too.
I'm not particularly inclined to call "Captain Phillips" one of the best films of the year, though I think it's tremendously entertaining, a technically impressive pieces of cinema, and successfully addresses some tricky issues surrounding Somali piracy head on. It's about the best dramatization of the hijacking that we could have hoped for, but at the same time I don't feel I understand what was so compelling about this story to warrant the film being made. The characters are all a little too idealized, and the plotting is often terribly thin. There are a lot of true life stories that I'd have rather seen Paul Greengrass's talents applied to.
---
Friday, November 29, 2013
"Family Guy" Frustrations
Ah, Thanksgiving weekend. When I get together with family over the holidays I usually end up watching several hours of television that I wouldn't under normal circumstances. In the past there have been "NCIS" marathons, "Mystery Science Theater 3000" evenings, and this year multiple episodes of "Family Guy" with my brother. He's a fan of the show, but I long ago decided that it was not for me. Still, I was a little curious about how "Family Guy" had been doing. I hadn't watched an episode since before its resurrection, back when it was still growing a cult following on "Adult Swim." Now that it had become monstrously popular, maybe it was more watchable.
Thanks to Hulu, we had access to a couple of the most recent episodes, and after watching several, I'm sorry to say that the show hasn't improved one bit. Oh, I understand the appeal. It's dark, mean, raunchy, and delivers a lot of shock value very well. However, it's almost totally lacking in heart, and I found the majority of the shocks way to gratuitous and lazy to be very entertaining. Daring can't substitute for cleverness. Also, there were the usual old problems that "South Park" so deftly skewered back in "Cartoon Wars," when it revealed that manatees with topic balls were the secret to the success of "Family Guy." There's the randomness of the non-sequiturs, the slapdash feel to the writing, and the sense that they're still cribbing their best material from better shows.
On the other hand, there have been some improvements. I like that Stewie's not the evil megalomaniac anymore. Instead, he's a neurotic gay sophisticate who happens to be trapped in the existence of an infant. His interactions with the only other sane member of the Griffin asylum, Brian, were my favorite parts of the episodes I saw. I heard the recent spoilers about Brian, and I have to say the move is daring, but it could also be disastrous to the show. Stewie and Brian have one of the only relationships on the show that actually works as a relationship. Peter and Chris still seem to be about the same. Lois has gotten a little darker, but is still essentially the same housewife template. Meg, the eternal victim, seems a little less miserable than when I saw her last, though that's only because she's embraced her family's perversions more fully.
What really struck me about these episodes was the level of the content. It's gotten much more extreme over the years, and is at least on par with the late night cable animated shows. There is lots and lots of sexual humor. I found references to pornography, sadomasochism, incest, rape, and it was implied that Meg had a menage a trois with Nintendo video game characters Mario and Luigi. Stewie's rejected teddy bear committing suicide our of despair seemed positively cuddly by comparison. "Family Guy" is veering awfully close to another animated show from a few years ago that relied almost entirely on shock humor, Comedy Central's short-lived reality show spoof "Drawn Together." It gave up on the premise pretty quickly in favor of copious amounts of sex and violence. "Family Guy" hasn't quite sunk to that level, but it's getting there.
I want to emphasize that it's not the content itself that I have a problem with. I love "South Park" and "Archer," and the more outrageous they get, the funnier they usually are. Those shows, however, are clever and well-written and understand that their best material comes from their characters. The generic storylines are broad parodies of family sitcoms that were out of date decades ago. "Family Guy," while it does get a few chuckles out of me here and there, is just graphic and sophomoric for the sake of being graphic and sophomoric. I'm honestly a little stunned that this is airing on a mainstream network in the 9PM hour. Sure, they never show any detailed genitalia and the nobody curses, but you'd think the blood and gore and vomit and sick humor would have gotten more flak in the general public. Or maybe I'm just old fashioned.
What I find especially strange is that from what I've seen of the "Family Guy" spinoffs, "The Cleveland Show" and "American Dad," creator Seth MacFarlane is capable of being much smarter and more interesting. "American Dad" in particular has had some great episodes, and I've never seen it be remotely as mean-spirited and vile as "Family Guy" has become. Heck, I liked "Ted" much more than I was expecting to, and I'm looking forward to the sequel. In its current form, I find "Family Guy" tolerable, but it's not something I'd ever watch on my own. In fact, over the course of the mini-marathon of episodes I sat through today, I find it a much easier watch if I only listen to the show and don't look directly at the screen.
Never a good sign.
Thanks to Hulu, we had access to a couple of the most recent episodes, and after watching several, I'm sorry to say that the show hasn't improved one bit. Oh, I understand the appeal. It's dark, mean, raunchy, and delivers a lot of shock value very well. However, it's almost totally lacking in heart, and I found the majority of the shocks way to gratuitous and lazy to be very entertaining. Daring can't substitute for cleverness. Also, there were the usual old problems that "South Park" so deftly skewered back in "Cartoon Wars," when it revealed that manatees with topic balls were the secret to the success of "Family Guy." There's the randomness of the non-sequiturs, the slapdash feel to the writing, and the sense that they're still cribbing their best material from better shows.
On the other hand, there have been some improvements. I like that Stewie's not the evil megalomaniac anymore. Instead, he's a neurotic gay sophisticate who happens to be trapped in the existence of an infant. His interactions with the only other sane member of the Griffin asylum, Brian, were my favorite parts of the episodes I saw. I heard the recent spoilers about Brian, and I have to say the move is daring, but it could also be disastrous to the show. Stewie and Brian have one of the only relationships on the show that actually works as a relationship. Peter and Chris still seem to be about the same. Lois has gotten a little darker, but is still essentially the same housewife template. Meg, the eternal victim, seems a little less miserable than when I saw her last, though that's only because she's embraced her family's perversions more fully.
What really struck me about these episodes was the level of the content. It's gotten much more extreme over the years, and is at least on par with the late night cable animated shows. There is lots and lots of sexual humor. I found references to pornography, sadomasochism, incest, rape, and it was implied that Meg had a menage a trois with Nintendo video game characters Mario and Luigi. Stewie's rejected teddy bear committing suicide our of despair seemed positively cuddly by comparison. "Family Guy" is veering awfully close to another animated show from a few years ago that relied almost entirely on shock humor, Comedy Central's short-lived reality show spoof "Drawn Together." It gave up on the premise pretty quickly in favor of copious amounts of sex and violence. "Family Guy" hasn't quite sunk to that level, but it's getting there.
I want to emphasize that it's not the content itself that I have a problem with. I love "South Park" and "Archer," and the more outrageous they get, the funnier they usually are. Those shows, however, are clever and well-written and understand that their best material comes from their characters. The generic storylines are broad parodies of family sitcoms that were out of date decades ago. "Family Guy," while it does get a few chuckles out of me here and there, is just graphic and sophomoric for the sake of being graphic and sophomoric. I'm honestly a little stunned that this is airing on a mainstream network in the 9PM hour. Sure, they never show any detailed genitalia and the nobody curses, but you'd think the blood and gore and vomit and sick humor would have gotten more flak in the general public. Or maybe I'm just old fashioned.
What I find especially strange is that from what I've seen of the "Family Guy" spinoffs, "The Cleveland Show" and "American Dad," creator Seth MacFarlane is capable of being much smarter and more interesting. "American Dad" in particular has had some great episodes, and I've never seen it be remotely as mean-spirited and vile as "Family Guy" has become. Heck, I liked "Ted" much more than I was expecting to, and I'm looking forward to the sequel. In its current form, I find "Family Guy" tolerable, but it's not something I'd ever watch on my own. In fact, over the course of the mini-marathon of episodes I sat through today, I find it a much easier watch if I only listen to the show and don't look directly at the screen.
Never a good sign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
