And Now, "Alita"

"Alita: Battle Angel" is the best Western adaptation of a Japanese anime or manga I've seen yet.  This is not a high bar, considering recent titles like "Ghost in the Shell" and "Death Note." However, "Alita" is pretty entertaining and does manage to capture some of what made the original property appealing.  Notably they got the character of Alita pretty much right, an amnesiac cyborg girl who lives in the future dystopia of Iron City.  

I haven't read Yukito Kishiro's "Alita" manga, originally titled "Gun Dream," but I am a fan of the 1993 anime adaptation.  The live action film, directed by Robert Rodriguez and scripted by James Cameron and Laeta Kalogridis, follows it pretty closely.  Alita (Rosa Salazar) is discovered by the kindly Dr. Ido (Christoph Waltz) on a scrap heap, and he rebuilds and rehabilitates her. She falls in love with a young man named Hugo (Keean Johnson), who is desperate to go to Zalem, a city in the sky that is closed off to those below.  Iron City is a dangerous place, full of crime, and policed only by "Hunter Killer" bounty hunters. Alita, however, is attracted by the danger and fighting, which may be related to her old, forgotten life.

The plot is kind of a mess, full of all sorts of outlandish elements like the Hunter Killers (I can't believe they kept that term), mad scientists, and an arena sport called Motorball.  It doesn't all cohere together too well. However, I do enjoy a lot of the worldbuilding, including so many different cyborg characters who have replaced parts of their bodies with hardware.  There are several memorable cyborg grotesques, created by placing actors' faces on CGI bodies, including villains Grewishka (Jackie Earle Haley) and Zapan (Ed Skrein). Alita herself has gotten a lot of attention for her digitally enlarged anime eyes.  I think the effect is executed very well, making Alita look otherworldly. And though initially a little distracting, I largely forgot about it after the first few minutes.

More importantly, many of the performances are good.  Rosa Salazar gives Alita a lot of personality, selling her teenage recklessness, her battle lust, and her passionate idealism.  I also really enjoy Christoph Waltz as fatherly Dr. Ido, and predict he's going to get plenty of offers for similar parts in the future.  Unfortunately, the film doesn't do much with other members of the cast like Jennifer Connelly, playing a rival cyborg doctor, Chiren, or her boss Vector, played by Mahershala Ali.  There's too much crammed into the movie to give all the characters their due. The worst victim of this is Hugo, who loses a good chunk of important backstory and doesn't come off well in this version at all.  Alita seems to fall in love with him because he's literally the first boy she sees, and their relationship never really works.  

Also a little lost in the shuffle is the whole dichotomy of Iron City and Zalem, which was central to the anime version.  Iron City actually seems to be a pretty nice place to live, at least during daylight hours. Several characters desperately want to go to Zalem, but it's not clear why it's so much better.  Neill Blomkamp's "Elysium" got across the concept of the elevated elites subjecting the masses below much more effectively. And though "Alita" keeps a lot of the imagery from the earlier version, it doesn't work so well without the original context.  "Alita" is PG-13, and tones down a lot of content, to the point where one memorable death happens offscreen entirely. And for all the carnage of the cyborgs chopping each other to bits, the violence is mostly bloodless.    

I'm hopeful that "Alita" gets the sequel that it has very obviously sets up, and we get to see more of her world.  I prefer the animated version of this story, but the new movie is an interesting piece of work, for its effects and its concepts if nothing else.  It's weird and ambitious and tries a lot of new things. Some of it's not very successful, but it's something different and promising. And that's more than I can say for most of this year's big studio blockbusters so far.  

---

My Favorite Richard Williams Film

Let's get one thing straight.  It might be Robert Zemeckis's name listed as director of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" but the movie is Richard Williams' triumph.  The Academy knew it, awarding him a special Oscar for his achievements as the film's animation director and chief character designer.  His fellow animators and filmmakers knew it, voting him "The Animator's Animator" in a London Times poll in 1990. Audiences, alas, never caught on, and Williams never really got the wider recognition for being one of the greatest animators who ever lived.

I respect and admire Zemeckis, but "Roger Rabbit" could not have been made without the work of Richard Williams.  Combining live action and traditional hand-drawn animation had been done before, but live actors interacting with animated characters to the degree that they do in "Roger Rabbit" would not have been possible without animation as fluid and spatially complex as what Williams and his team provided.  Known for his high standards and high ambitions, Williams was always described as demanding but inspiring. He was capable of generating astonishing work that violated all the usual rules of animation. He could accommodate a moving camera and shifting perspectives, even though that meant all the animation in "Roger Rabbit" had to be painstakingly drawn "on ones," or frame for frame with the live action footage.  Williams did plenty of the actual animating himself, claiming that he worked on nearly every scene in the movie.    

So Roger Rabbit and the other "toons" could splash in live action water, bump live action lamps, and adjust live action clothing.  This was thanks in large part to the efforts of Zemeckis and his practical effects team. But it's thanks to Williams and the other animators that the character do all these things while moving and reacting like the old school squash and stretch Tex Avery cartoons.  And they were also responsible for the resurrection of dozens and dozens of beloved classic cartoon characters, from Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny to Betty Boop, in order to populate the world of "Roger Rabbit." It's one thing to conceive of Donald Duck and Daffy Duck having a piano duel at the Ink and Paint Club, but it's quite another to actually see the two of them in their prime, banging away at those real, physical pianos, executing wild gag after gag at lightning speeds.      

And so, Eddie Valiant and Roger Rabbit are able to convincingly embark on their buddy comedy/detective noir, solving the mystery of who killed Marvin Acme and foiling the plans of the evil Judge Doom.  And so, we get to explore this marvelous universe where humans and toons coexist seamlessly in a nostalgic 1940s Hollywood. At its heart, the movie is an excuse to pay homage to all the animation greats of the golden era of cartoon short subjects, full of references and in-jokes and countless cameos.  The original characters, like Roger Rabbit, Jessica, and Baby Herman, all contain elements inspired by specific cartoon shorts, and feel like products of that era. Jessica is a Tex Avery pin-up girl. Roger is an amalgam of Warner and Disney characters - he's got Mickey's gloves, Porky's bow-tie, Goofy's pants, and a Mel Blanc-worthy lisp.      

As a kid, I loved "Roger Rabbit" for its silliness and its madcap nature, for breaking the barrier between the human and cartoon worlds in a way that I'd never seen before, and wondered why they didn't do more often.  After all, it looked so easy and natural for Eddie and Roger to share the screen together. As an adult, however, I marvel at how the filmmakers got all those disparate elements to make coherent visual sense. Now I know that it took multiple teams of artists months and months of Herculean effort to breathe life into that world and those characters, frame by frame.  And that the work was done with an inordinate amount of care, under the guidance of an animation director who wouldn't settle for anything other than brilliance.  

"Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" is a film that could never be made again for a long list of reasons - and keep in mind that the studios did try for years to make a sequel.  But even if you got all the studios to play nice and the legal matters squared away, nobody does traditional animation on the level that Richard Williams did it anymore.  Sure, there's plenty of talent out there, and improvements in technology have helped things along, but Williams' superhuman dedication to his craft and yen for doing the impossible aren't so easy to replace.

What I've Seen - Richard Williams

Raggedy Ann & Andy (1977)

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988)

The Thief and the Cobbler: The Recobbled Cut (2006)

---

Disney's 2020

A year ago, Disney's release schedule looked like this:

Untitled Disney live-action film - February 14, 2020

Untitled Pixar film - March 6, 2020

"Mulan," - March 27, 2020

Untitled Marvel Studios film - May 1, 2020

"Maleficent II" - May 29, 2020

Untitled Pixar film - June 19, 2020

Untitled Marvel Studios film - July 31, 2020

Untitled Disney live-action film - October 9, 2020

Untitled Marvel Studios film - November 6, 2020

Untitled Disney animated film - November 25, 2020

Untitled Disney live-action film - December 23, 2020   

I figured that we needed an update.  To keep things simple, I'm ignoring all the Fox projects that Disney has gained through the merger, like the live action "Call of the Wild." 

Right now, the schedule looks like this:

"Onward” - March 6, 2020

"Mulan," - March 27, 2020

“Black Widow” - May 1, 2020

“Artemis Fowl” – May 29, 2020 (delayed from 2019)

“Soul” - June 19, 2020

“Jungle Cruise” – July 24, 2020 (delayed from 2019)

“The One and Only Ivan” – August 14, 2020

Untitled Disney live-action film - October 9, 2020

“The Eternals” - November 6, 2020

"Raya and the Last Dragon" - November 25, 2020

So, we lost what was probably supposed to be "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3" to some undetermined future date,  "Cruella" was in the December slot but got bumped to 2021, and the "Maleficent" sequel was moved up to 2019. Also, "Artemis Fowl" and "Jungle Cruise" were delayed from 2019  to 2020, and "The One and Only Ivan" got added to the slate. It is nots clear if "Ivan" was the Untitled Disney Live Action Film previously scheduled for February 14th, that has disappeared, or if this is a different project.  It's been difficult to keep them straight, with Disney's habit of dubbing every in-development project "Untitled." Some of the in-production ones too, actually.

I expect the October 9th film to move, since the slot is currently occupied by Fox's "Death on the Nile." "The Eternals" is also currently in the same November 6th slot as Fox's animated film "Ron's Gone Wrong," about a boy and his robot pal.  "Cruella" was likely moved to avoid Speilberg's "West Side Story." All the kinks from the recent merger are clearly still being sorted out. 

Now, compared to the insanely profitable 2019 slate that is closing in on $10 billion in receipts , 2020 is probably not going to do even half as well.  Even with the Fox titles, it'll be a stretch. The big Marvel film for next year is "Black Widow," and probably the only surefire moneymaker is superhero sequel "Venom 2."  There are a ton of original titles, including all the animated films and the wacky Rock star vehicle "Jungle Cruise." There are live action remakes of animated Disney classics, but of less popular titles "Mulan" and "101 Dalmatians."  Also a factor is that the launch of Disney Plus is going to be taking up a huge amount of the company's attention. Note that several of the less promising Disney titles in development have been turned into Disney Plus content, like the live action "Lady and the Tramp," and the Anna Kendrick Christmas movie, "Noelle." 

Investors and exhibitors may be nervous, but film fans should be happy, because this is a slate that is far, far more interesting than last year's.  Sure, most of these are adaptations, but there's every indication that they're adaptations that are willing to take more creative risks. "Mulan" is taking a very different, more action-oriented  approach to the original material. The Marvel films are riskier ventures like "The Eternals" and Spidey spinoff "Morbius." Even "Black Widow" is going to be this weird midquel spy film that I don't think anyone's really got their heads wrapped around yet.  

The films I'm most interested in are the ones I know almost nothing about, like PIXAR's "Soul," which will be Pete Docter's follow-up to "Inside Out," and the action comedy "Jungle Cruise" with Dwayne Johnson.  After the recent proliferation of sequels, it's honestly a relief to see the studio putting out anything that doesn't have a number in the title - even if some of them are inevitably going to be franchise starters themselves.       

---

The Summer Movie Wager Update

Now that summer movie season is over, let's have a look at the aftermath.  So here are my predictions for the 2019 summer box office from back in April:

1. Avengers: Endgame

2. Pokémon: Detective Pikachu

3. Hobbs and Shaw 4. The Lion King 5. Spider-man: Far From Home 6. Toy Story 4 7. The Secret Life of Pets 2 8. Godzilla: King of the Monsters 9. John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum 10. Aladdin

Wild Cards:

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Men in Black: International

Rocketman

And here's the actual top 10 films of summer 2019:

1. Avengers: Endgame 2. The Lion King

3. Toy Story 4 4. Spider-Man: Far from Home 5. Aladdin 6. John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum 7. Hobbs and Shaw 8. The Secret Life of Pets 2 9. Detective Pikachu 10. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

That gives me a grand total of 40 points.  "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" passing "Godzilla" in the end cost me an extra six points.  Still, this was not my worst showing by far. I managed to get nearly every major title somewhere on the list, only missing the Tarantino.  There were no "Ted 2" level blunders. However, there were also no "Straight Out of Compton" or "Girls Trip" level surprises either, which is a little disappointing.  2019 turned out to be a pretty predictable year.  

My biggest mistake was spreading out the Disney releases throughout my list, figuring that audiences weren't possibly going to show up to all of them.  Well, I was wrong. The top five are literally all Disney movies, if you count "Spider-man." "Aladdin," which I thought looked very promising in spite of the negative attention around the early promotional efforts, exceeded expectations.  However, I chickened out and stuck it at the bottom of the list, expecting it to perform more like past Disney flops "Prince of Persia" or "The Lone Ranger." 

Thanks to the Disney dominance, the other family films took big hits, notably "Detective Pikachu," "UglyDolls," "Angry Birds 2," and "Secret Life of Pets 2."  I wonder if any of them are going to be seeing continuations. "Pikachu" and "Secret Life of Pets" were profitable, but not nearly as much as their studios were hoping.  No comedies broke out like we've seen in the past, though "Yesterday" and "Good Boys" had unexpectedly strong showings. "Booksmart" and "Long Shot" had some good press, but failed to break out.  Indie films in general had a terrible season, with only "The Farewell" getting much attention.  

The big R-rated action film this year was "John Wick," which I expected to exceed the box office of the prior installments.  Just not by this much. I expect that we'll see several more entries in the series now, since we're officially in blockbuster territory.  "Hobbs & Shaw" feels like it underperformed, but it made plenty of money, especially overseas. It's important to remember that it's a "Fast & Furious" spinoff and not a proper sequel, so it shouldn't be held to the same standard.  For a Rock vehicle it did pretty well. For a Staham vehicle, it was fantastic. I guess "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" also fits into this category, bringing in the biggest box office of Quentin Tarantino's career despite some mixed reactions.     

Horror had some hits, though they were often under the radar.  Chucky and Annabelle got little traction, but "Crawl," "Ready or Not," and "Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark" made decent profits on smaller budgets.  "Midsommar" did too, but wasn't in the same ballpark as Ari Aster's previous film, "Hereditary." The 800 pound gorilla, of course, is "IT: Chapter 2," which Warners is wisely keeping in September, but I can't help wondering how it would have fared in July or August.  

Finally, we all knew "Dark Phoenix" was going to bomb, and it did.  This will be the end of the Fox "X-men" franchise, as "New Mutants" is being reworked to be a standalone feature.  I suspect that this is also the end of "MIB," unless Sony can lure Will Smith back for a direct sequel.       

Next summer should be more interesting, with Disney's much weaker slate, a big selection of non-franchise films, and the return of Christopher Nolan and Tom Cruise.  Until next time.  

---

Emmywatch 2019

Well this was a strange, interesting year.  The awards races themselves were actually kind of fun, with plenty of good nominees and some major upsets, and Phoebe Waller Bridge being an absolute class act as she wiped the floor with nearly all of her competitors.  Also, there was some choice schadenfreude seeing everyone turn on “Game of Thrones” for most of the evening, only to have them win Best Drama in the end anyway. Because really, no other show generated nearly as much drama both onscreen and off.

The telecast itself, however, was this hostile, kind of exasperated thing produced by Fox.  There was no host, few production numbers or skits, and a minimalist stage design. Their biggest stylistic choice was employing announcer Thomas Lennon, who filled the space during the winners’ walk to the stage with increasingly cynical and absurdist commentary.  A lot of it didn’t work, and gave the ceremony a passive-aggressive tone all night. Fine, we’ll host your stupid awards show where we aren’t nominated for anything, but we’re only going to do a half-assed job of it. The tributes to departing shows like “Game of Thrones” and “Veep” felt like time-wasting filler, and the lack of an orchestra just came across as cheap.

And yet, they couldn’t keep the great moments from happening.  Newly minted stars Julia Garner, Jodie Comer, Jharrel Jerome, and a most glorious Billy Porter all won unexpectedly and delivered great speeches full of enthusiasm and energy. They couldn’t keep the politics out, as Patricia Arquette paid tribute to her trans sister and Michelle Williams delivered a wonderfully polished appeal for gender parity.  The bleeped comment about immigration from the "Succession" winner only served to draw more attention to it. Trump was ignored all night, but there were plenty of veiled swipes at him from the creators of shows like “Chernobyl” and “Veep.”

Speaking of “Veep,” one of the big narratives of the night was watching it and “Game of Thrones” being quickly supplanted by newcomers to the Emmy race.  Both shows have dominated in their races for years, and the finale seasons could easily have been a victory lap for both of them. Instead, “Thrones” only won two major awards, and “Veep” was shut out.  Jason Bateman winning a directing award felt like a consolation prize for losing in the acting category, but was actually a much bigger swipe at “Game of Thrones,” the clear favorite going in. In the final count, HBO took home the most statuettes, but Amazon and Netflix both made a very strong showing this year. 

I wonder if “Ozark” and “Succession” will keep winning next year with “A Handmaid’s Tale,” "The Crown," and “Westworld” back in the mix.  “Barry” and “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” must be relieved that “Fleabag” is not coming back for a third series any time soon. On the other hand, there’s a boatload of new series coming our way, any of which could be the next “Thrones."  I doubt any of them are going to come from the networks, though. Aside from “The Good Place” and “This is Us,” both NBC shows, comedy and drama nominees were all from cable or streaming. The only acknowledgement of ratings juggernaut and onetime Emmy darling “The Big Bang Theory” was in one of the montages.  I’d assumed “Pose” and “Schitt’s Creek” were network shows, but they air on Pop TV and FX respectively.

Anyway, it was nice to see Bob Newhart and Norman Lear, bask in the fabulousness of Billy Porter’s outfit, and wonder whether the age of niche TV means that the total British takeover over awards season is inevitable.  The worst win of the night was probably Bateman - whatever the faults of the last season of “Game of Thrones,” the directing wasn’t one of them. Best was probably Comer, since we all finally got to hear her adorable Liverpool accent.  And I'm going to go with Maya Rudolph and Ike Barinholtz as best presenters, for an old bit that they really committed to.

And though there were some glaring exceptions, it also felt like the awards mostly got things right this year. Until next time.

---

The 2018-2019 Television I Didn't Watch

Television works on a different calendar than the movies, so I figured it was best to follow the Emmy calendar when picking my cutoff date.  So, below, find nine shows from the 2018-2019 television year that I regret not seeing, but ultimately don't have the time or the inclination to, with some rambling thoughts about my reasoning.  

The Act - I'm glad Joey King and Patricia Arquette are enjoying some time in the spotlight.  However, this is one of those gruesome true life tales that I have no interest in seeing dramatized.  If it were a feature film, I could make myself get through it to see the performances. Eight episodes, however, is too much for me to get my head around.  Child abuse and medical trauma are areas I'm simply not going to tread without a lot of reluctance. 

Escape at Dannemora - Benicio Del Toro, Patricia Arquette, and Paul Dano starring in a prison break mystery miniseries directed by Ben Stiller sounds pretty promising.  However, this is roughly eight hours long and described as slow paced. Also, despite some awards attention, including a Golden Globe for Arquette, there's been very little buzz.  Again, if it were a movie I could probably make time for it. A miniseries is just too much commitment.     

When They See Us - This is the one I feel bad about, because it's about an important, terrible miscarriage of justice that needs more attention.  And it's only four hours! However, I've seen the excellent Central Park Five documentary that Ken Burns put out a few years ago, and Netflix's released metrics suggest that the show has been a hit and garnered plenty of buzz.  So I don't feel that guilty about turning my attention the glut of other prestige shows.    

Succession - A show about a family of horrible, rich, privileged degenerates, that happens to star some actors I adore.  And I don't want to touch this one with a ten foot pole. No matter how funny I've heard this is, I just can't take cringe humor in large amounts.  It's the same reason I couldn't get anywhere with "Veep" or "Fleabag." I just get no entertainment value out of watching people being terrible and being humiliated over and over again.  

Strange Angel - I like Jack Reynor, and I like the subject matter.  Jack Parsons is a fascinating figure from recent American history, surrounded by conspiracy and mystery.  However, the show is reportedly pretty slow paced and low key. I was surprised it got a second season since it's been so low profile. I've enjoyed media from the key creatives - Mark Heyman and David Lowery - but they don't exactly inspire the greatest amount of confidence.

Who is America?  - I'm glad that Sascha Baron Cohen is still running around and doing his brand of public shaming disguised as comedy.  However, it's become clear to me over the years that I'm just not the audience for this. So sure, I'll watch some clips and follow the outrage as it plays out after the show airs.  But there's no way I'm devoting any effort to watching the actual show, especially when I'm constantly behind on Oliver, Noah, and Colbert.

Castle Rock - There's one brilliant episode of "Castle Rock" that everyone talks about, one featuring Sissy Spacek's character coping with dementia.  I may seek out that one specific episode in the future, but I haven't heard anything that makes me interested in the rest of the show, with its overcomplicated meta approach to portraying Steven King's universe.  If I need a King fix, there are plenty of other options, and certainly much more straightforward ones. 

Doom Patrol - Perhaps unfairly, I decided that it came down to a choice between watching "Doom Patrol" and Netflix's "Umbrella Academy," and I suspect that I chose the wrong show.  However, none of the previews sold me on the characters or the worldbuilding, and I've already seen two other takes on Cyborg's origins pretty recently. There's plenty of superhero media on my plate at the moment, and I don't feel too guilty about ignoring this one.  

Gentleman Jack - BBC Period drama!  Strong female lead! This sounds promising.  And it's about a cross-dresser carrying on secret lesbian relationships?  Er, okay. And the romantic relationships and melodrama take up the vast majority of the show?  Er, a coal mining subplot? Well, maybe this one isn't really for me. I mean, "queer Bronte" sounds fun, but I'm not a fan of soaps on a good day.  I'll check it out for Gillian Anderson, but - wait, that's not Gillian Anderson?

Catch 22 - George Clooney, despite his best efforts, is not much of a director.  So while the cast is great (Kyle Chandler! Hugh Laurie! Giancarlo Giannini!) and the material is legendary, I am not especially interested in this one.  I've read the book and and seen the '70s movie with Alan Arkin, and I'm sure that a great modern version could be done. I'm just not convinced that this format and this group of creatives are the way we're going to get one.  

---

Stars in the Streaming Age

It's been a while since I've tackled an actor's filmography the way I did when I was younger, when I was  getting crushes on box office heartthrobs and set out to watch every movie that they'd ever appeared in. I have some fun memories of tracking down obscure movies to catch a few minutes of baby-faced Christian Bale or Leo DiCaprio.  However, I skipped television appearances, mostly. They were almost always guest roles, done early in their careers, and usually pretty underwhelming.  

Things have changed, and changed drastically.  It used to be that there was a clear separation between television and film production, and television and film talent.  Television was clearly the inferior medium, and someone crossing over the divide into film was a big deal. If you were a fan of Ryan Gosling or Johnny Depp or George Clooney, it was safe to ignore most of the work that they did in television.  Sure, it was fun to look up the old episodes of "Breaker High" and "21 Jump Street," but you didn't treat the performances as anything on the same level as what they did later on in the movies.  

In 2019, the divide between film and television is almost totally gone.  In fact, I think there's a good case to be made that prestige acting gigs are more consistently found on television and web series than they are in the movies.  "Bohemian Rhapsody" may have gotten Ramy Malek an Oscar, but there's no question that "Mr. Robot" made him a star. Most steadily working actors these days are constantly going from one to the other.  Take Dan Stevens, who simultaneously starred in the FX series "Legion" and appeared in seven different films over the same time period, including starring roles in "Apostle," "The Man Who Invented Christmas," and "Beauty and the Beast."

So if I want to catch up on the work of someone like Jessie Buckley, who was fantastic in "Chernobyl" and last year's indie film "Beast," I need to pay attention to her television roles.  She's had major parts in the BBC "War & Peace" an "The Woman in White" miniseries, and the BBC/FX series "Taboo" with Tom Hardy. There are still actors who start in the movies and stay there, like "Crazy Rich Asians" newbie Henry Golding, but they're rare birds these days.  His co-star Constance Wu made that massive faux pas a few months ago when she complained about her sitcom being renewed, thus limiting her ability to take on other work. However, it's easy to sympathize when most TV no longer requires actors to commit to a show to that degree.      

And it isn't just actors, of course.  Cary Joji Fukunaga has done his share of features, but his best work is arguably the first season of "True Detective."  Ditto Jean-Marc Vallee and "Big Little Lies." We're a bit past the point where the streaming services were getting behind things like Baz Luhrmann's "The Get Down" and Woody Allen's "Crisis in Six Scenes," but nobody is batting an eye at Jon Favreau making "The Mandalorian" for Disney Plus or Ava DuVernay making "When They See Us" for Netflix.  It still feels like a bit of a step down, when David Fincher is unable to get any project off the ground except Netflix's "Mindhunter," but it's not like he's expected to only be a TV director from here on out.  

However, the new elevation of longform television does worry me a little, because series and miniseries have been more difficult to track and access than films.  The older ones tend to disappear into the ether quicker. There are so many cases of series that seem to drop off the face of the earth, never put on home media, or only licensed piecemeal.  With the industry in so much turmoil, and content libraries changing hands so often, there are always titles that end up falling through the cracks. "Veronica Mars," for instance, disappeared from streaming for a while until Hulu acquired it in the lead-up to the revival. 

    
Also, as television gets more prominent, movies are feeling the squeeze.  It worries me that we're seeing major auteurs going many years between projects, often devoted to raising funds.  It worries me that the rom-com revival is happening on Netflix, and that big budget films are so absurdly lopsided toward genre fare.  We're not at the point where the theatrical business model is in danger of collapse, but it's certainly changing. There are certain genres and audiences that the movies seem to have simply abandoned.

But television hasn't.  And the talent goes where the work is.     

---

Making Sense of My Youtube Recommendations

I've fallen into a pattern of finishing my night by watching Youtube videos, maybe for half an hour or so after I've finished a movie.  I usually watch a combination of late night comedy clips, video essays and humor videos about media, and maybe a new trailer or two. I've found myself relying more and more on the auto-generated recommendations, neatly arranged in an octobox at the top of the screen, instead of browsing around myself.  It's very convenient, as it usually just pulls from the new videos of any channels I've subscribed to or have been watching recently.

And over time, the recommendation algorithm has introduced me to other content providers, video essayists in particular.  Contrapoints, Patrick H. Willems, and Lessons From the Screenplay have all entered my regular rotation, initially recommended, no doubt, because I'm a big fan of Breadtube regulars, Lindsay Ellis and Kyle Kallgren.  Lately it's been pushing Jenny Nicholson awfully hard. I've watched a few of her videos, but I'm not that interested. I have nothing against Nicholson, who is lovely and talented, but her format and hee style of analysis aren't for me.   

It's easy enough to get Youtube to stop recommending Jenny Nicholson videos to me.  I just stop watching them, and go through and remove any of her videos from the octobox as they come up, and any of the recommended channels, which are listed right beneath it.  The majority of these channels are actually Youtube's AI created channels that group videos by subject matter, non-curated and arranged by popularity. For instance, a channel might be devoted to "adult animation" clips or "Keanu Reeves."  These are harder to banish, because there are so many overlapping subject matter categories. If I dismiss the "Marvel Movies" topic channel, it doesn't get rid of "Marvel Superheroes," "Marvel Studios," "Marvel Comics," "Avengers" or "Iron Man."  You have to be persistent. 

I've had less success trying to get the recommendations box to generate more of certain types of content that I actually do want to see.  For instance, I like keeping up with current movie and television trailers. However, the few times I've subscribed to specific channels for trailers, I usually end up having to fend off other marketing clips and commercials that I have no interest in, or compilation and reaction videos from the fan sources.  The octobox will usually show me the really big, high profile trailers when they come out, but I have to search out trailers for foreign and independent films on my own. Really, anything even a little niche tends to take some digging.      

With the recent bad press about Youtube being a tool used to radicalize alt-righters, and the whole Elsagate mess from a while back, the site's recommendation algorithms have been getting a lot of flak lately.  However, I think it overlooks how inherently unsophisticated they are. The system is pretty awful at identifying content beyond a few basic descriptors, is slow to react to various inputs, and everyone is constantly trying to game it.  Once you understand how it works and what its limitations are, it's not difficult to see what it's doing. And that awareness is important.

The goal of Youtube recommendations is to keep the viewer watching, and where the system gets into trouble is its unfortunate tendency to start pushing extremist or inappropriate content with high viewing metrics whenever someone watches videos involving certain topics.  Rabbit holes can develop real fast. And even though I'm picky and tend to stay away from hot button issues, this works on me too. Contrapoints, for instance, really has nothing to do with any of my usual interests aside from very peripheral academic pop culture analysis.  I'm happy to have found the channel, but how I found it is another matter.  

For the most part my Youtube recommendations are benign, because I watch remarkably benign videos and actively curate my octobox and other recommendation feeds.  I delete way more than I ever subscribe. However, every once in a while Youtube still puts a Jenny Nicholson video in front of me, as if it's making sure that I'm really, really sure I don't want to see more of her or subscribe to her channel.  And sometimes I hesitate, just for a second.    

---

The Big TV Meta Post

At the beginning of this summer, I wrote out a list of upcoming television and web series I intended on watching, along with their premiere dates, just to help myself keep track of them.  I ended up with a list of over a dozen shows, about one per week for the entire summer. And that's roughly about when I decided that I had to face up to the fundamental truth that my TV consumption was, despite my best efforts, really starting to rival my intake of feature films.

And this is not necessarily a bad thing.  It's become very clear over the last few years that commercial television is often just as strong as film in delivering quality entertainment.  In many cases it's a much more economically viable avenue to tell certain kinds of stories. And though there's still a cultural gap, the prestige of doing a really great piece of longform drama isn't all that different from doing a theatrical film.  The quality of the work produced by all the creatives involved is the same. We've seen this year with "Chernobyl" and "When They See Us" that they can have the same kind of artistic and social impact. So really, they ought to be treated the same - including on this blog.

In practicality, however, television is so much harder to consume and  write about, especially in aggregate. There's way too much of it for all but the most dedicated television critics to stay on top of.  I gave up trying to follow the Emmy races because watching so many nominated shows was just too much of a commitment. And with network television and cable losing ground to streaming services every day - and more streaming services still on their way - the landscape remains very unstable.  It's easy to talk about what's going on in the industry, but harder to track the specific implications and trends that result, especially as ratings metrics are harder to come by.  

This year, for example, we lost a bunch of good shows before their time, like "Counterpart," "Swamp Thing," and "The Tick," but unlike last year almost none were able to jump networks - "One Day at a Time" was the only major title that managed it.  However, the reasons for each cancellation are completely different. "Counterpart" was snuffed because Starz was acquired by Lionsgate, and was dumping shows they didn't produce. "The Tick" seems to have been a case of Amazon cutting back on expenses after several costly projects.  "Swamp Thing" had the most dramatic cancellation, due to a combination of economics and company politics that remain murky. Are those murky reasons the same as the ones that got all the Netflix Marvel shows cancelled? It's hard to say.

I feel bad about skipping a lot of chances to talk about TV lately.  Since cutting back on the number of posts I've been writing, I've stopped covering the fall network premieres, didn't write anything about the Upfronts or the corresponding programming shifts, and I've even dropped my Top Ten lists for older television content.  Because I haven't been able to be as comprehensive as I've wanted, I've just cut more topics. I have a couple of ideas for pieces about specific streaming services coming up, but nothing that's really focusing on the shows outside of my typical season reviews. And I'm going to stop apologizing for the TV content sometimes overwhelming the film content - that's just going to be inevitable some months.     

So, I've decided to add two or three new features into the rotation, ones I've been considering adding for a while.  The first is at least one "Trailers! Trailers!" post each year devoted to television series. This will probably be posted in the summer months, after Upfronts or Comic-Con when we tend to get new clips.  Another, which you're going to be seeing soon because the Emmys are upon us, will be a "What I Didn't See" post for television and web series to go with the one I usually write every year for movies. If I'm going to keep complaining about not having time to watch these shows, I should at least write about the shows themselves in some capacity.  There's also going to be a yearly television "Best of" or "Top Ten" list, but I haven't decided the format yet. 

What really prompted this was a few recent conversations I've had where it became apparent that there wasn't really a line between film stardom and television stardom anymore, and the implications of all that - but I'll save further discussion for its own post, coming shortly.  

---

Well, They Remade "Dumbo"

The original 1941 "Dumbo" cartoon was one of my formative cinematic experiences.  I know every frame of animation, every note of the soundtrack, and every word of the script inside and out.  And to say I was not looking forward to the 2019 live action version is an understatement. However, I felt oddly duty-bound to see the new beast and report back on exactly how different the adaptation was from the original.  Also, I've seen every single Tim Burton feature to date, and I'm not stopping now.

And to my surprise, I didn't hate it.  I don't think it's a good film, or a good adaptation, but there are salvageable pieces here and there, a few interesting ideas and improvements.  It helps that the live-action "Dumbo" is very different from the cartoon "Dumbo," with the plot of the original only being the first act of the new version.  Only the very basic structure is still intact, and the characters of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo, are the only ones retained. There are a few references to helpful mice and pink elephants, but they're brief.  Instead, the story is mostly about human beings.  

Former trick rider Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) comes home from the Great War to his children, Milly (Nico Parker) and Joe (Finley Hobbins), and the fading Medici Brothers circus, run by Max Medici (Danny DeVito).  Because Holt has lost an arm, and his wife and act partner has died, Holt is reassigned to the role of reluctant elephant keeper. The new baby elephant, Dumbo, who arrives with outlandish giant ears, is initially treated as a freak and a source of trouble.  However, he becomes a sensation when the children discover that he can fly. This attracts the attention of the sinister V. A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur and impresario who wants Dumbo for his Dreamland park.

The retelling of Dumbo's origins and struggle to learn to fly is told very quickly and comes off pretty poorly.  The CGI elephants are not remotely as appealing or expressive as their cartoon counterparts. The cute kids are a poor substitute for Timothy Q. Mouse, especially as the performances they turn in are unbearably wooden and stilted - though I prefer to blame the director instead of the young actors.  There's an uneasy balancing act between seeing the elephants put in situations where they are exploited and abused, and keeping some of the human characters involved sympathetic. A new baddie named Rufus (Phil Zimmerman) is responsible for the most obvious acts of cruelty, but it's clear that the story doesn't work nearly as well when the elephants are no longer the primary protagonists.

However, once Dumbo learns to fly, we shift gears to an entirely new narrative and a new set of characters.  Suddenly Vandevere shows up as the real villain of the piece, with Michael Keaton playing an evil Walt Disney type, complete with his own gorgeously overdesigned Disneyland analogue.  Keaton is firmly in Ray Kroc territory with some extra smarm, and a joy to watch every minute he's on screen. I also got a kick out of Eva Green appearing as Vandevere's star aerialist, Colette, and Alan Arkin getting in a few scenes where he's supposed to be playing an investor, but is pretty much just playing himself.  It also allows for the Medici Circus crew to position themselves firmly as Dumbo's friends and protectors against this greater threat, and it becomes much easier to root for them.

The story eventually turns into another frantic action movie in the final act, but it's one that flows pretty well and features a surprisingly satisfying ending.  I also really like how this section of the movie looks, with the off-kilter amusement park imagery and some strong visual storytelling. "Dumbo" feels more like a Tim Burton movie than any Tim Burton movie I've seen in years.  And when it's good, it's good in ways I can't help loving as a Burton fan.  

And when it's not - well, it's not.  Ehren Kruger's script is passable, but has some awfully weak dialogue.  The cringey Disney "science girl" has officially become a stock type, and probably a counterproductive one.  Dumbo, despite the best efforts of his animators and effects team, never looked right when he was flying. I really, really didn't need an Arcade Fire cover of "Baby Mine."  Or the flabbergasting Michael Buffer cameo.         

A "Dumbo" remake is, of course, completely unnecessary, but all things considered it could have been worse.  At least is wasn't a slavish copycat like "Beauty and the Beast," or a soulless parade float like "The Nutcracker and the Four Realms."  "Dumbo" was wise enough to keep the heart of the story about Dumbo and his mother. It was not, however, wise enough to actually be a movie about Dumbo and his mother.   

---

My Top Ten Films of 1975

This is part of my continuing series looking back on films from the years before I began this blog.

The ten films below are unranked and listed in no particular order. Enjoy.

Love and Death -  Such a wonderfully weird picture, full of literary and film references that nobody gets anymore.  I think that's why I like it so much. It's Woody Allen experimenting and being a geek over obscure subject matter close to his heart, taking the heaviest themes he can find in the most somber contexts imaginable, and using them as the basis for wacky farce and a few moments of insightful self-examination.  In this way he's able to pay homage to his idols, notably Ingmar Bergman and the great Russian novelists, but also to indulge his penchant for the joyous and absurd.

Dog Day Afternoon - There are movies about bank robberies gone wrong and then there's "Dog Day Afternoon," where the crime turns into a tense standoff and hostage situation, and nobody knows how to end it.  This is the movie I will remember Al Pacino for, giving a livewire performance that it's impossible to take your eyes off of. His character, Sonny, becomes an anti-establishment and counter-culture hero, as he tries to keep the situation from spiralling out of control.  We sympathize with him, but we also sympathize with everyone else caught in this impossible situation.  

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest - In a different era, Jack Nicholson's system-bucking Randall McMurphy might have been given more shades of gray, and Louse Fletcher's Nurse Ratchet might have been made more sympathetic.  Here, however, they serve as perfect stand-ins for the rebel and the cold authoritarian system in one of the great modern fables about individual freedom. With a supporting cast full of great character actors, and a simple production that nonetheless turned a hospital ward into a microcosm of human society, the story may be heavy-handed, but this is undeniably one of the greats.

Nashville - There's a good case to be made that this is Robert Altman's masterpiece.  Considered prescient at the time of release, it's become a canny snapshot of its era. The ensemble is vast and talented, the stories are wonderfully woven together, and I even like the musical performances.  It is by turns hilarious, infuriating, moving, joyous, and deeply sad. The satirical elements made the film unpopular among the real musical community of Nashville, but I can't think of a better representation of the media circus that accompanies political and entertainment events like the one we see in the film.     

Deep Red - The lurid imagery, the heightened atmosphere, and the maniacal women are all hallmarks of a Dario Argento film, and this is one of his most successful.  I love the gruesome fairy tale nature of the flashbacks, the themes of spiritualism and trauma, and especially the eerie score from the Goblins. The violence is still jarring and the first-person camera still puts the viewer uncomfortably close to the horror.  The use of children's toys and drawings in particular has been influential on so much subsequent horror media. It's a B movie through and through, but offers thrills as only a great B movie could.

Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles - Chantal Akerman's most famous feature could be classified as an experimental film, because it defies conventional film structure almost entirely.  It's over three hours in length, full of long static shots, and concerned with documenting the daily routine of a housewife played by Delphine Seyrig. The film forces the viewer to pay attention to oft ignored domestic drudgery and eventually uses it as a storytelling tool.  The length and style can make this a challenging watch, but the experience is a uniquely absorbing one, and the payoff is worth the wait.     

Fox and His Friends - I still cringe thinking about some of the scenes in this film, about a mentally challenged young gay man who comes into a fortune, and subsequently comes to ruin.  Rainer Werner Fassbender gives himself a rare starring role as poor Franz Biberkopf, who is easily flattered and easily duped. Fassbender cuts such a pathetic figure, and Franz's trajectory is so clear from so early on.  What really sells the tragedy, however, is spartan, rough style of production. It highlights how the hallmarks of economic success and social status are all very surface level things - and ultimately ephemeral.  

Dersu Uzala - A curious entry in Akira Kurosawa's filmmography is this Russian language film about the exploration of the Russian frontier.  It was the only film he ever made outside of Japan. Examining the friendship between an explorer and his native guide, it quietly explores themes of culture clash, coexistence with the natural world, and the destructive power of civilization.  The imagery, however, is what I remember best. Kurosawa turns the wilderness into a place of great danger and great beauty. The use of color is bold and striking, especially in the sequence with the midnight sun.    

Picnic at Hanging Rock - An unsettling, dreamlike film about a mysterious disappearance, this was Peter Weir's breakthough feature, and something of a breakthrough for Australian cinema in general.  There's an intense psychological element to the story, often tied to features of the Australian landscape, and the stifling girls' school that the film depicts. This invite all sorts of speculation about the film's themes and messages.  However, what makes it such a fascinating watch is its ambiguity and its break from traditional structure. It's a mystery with no solution, no release from tension, and no apparent end.  

Jaws - I've come to appreciate the film more for the performances and the filmmaking over the years.  The terror I associated with it as a young child has mostly faded, though hearing the score still makes me nervous.  Instead, these days it's all about Roy Scheider, Richard Dreyfuss, and Robert Shaw drunkenly swapping stories. It's about the murky underwater POV shots, and that magical moment when we learn that the heroes are going to need a bigger boat.  I didn't think of this as a horror film for the longest time, though it has all the earmarks of one. In my mind. "Jaws" was always in a class by itself.    

Honorable Mention:

Barry Lyndon

---

Wham, Bam, "Shazam!"

"Shazam" feels like a throwback to 90s and 2000s era kids movies.  Maybe it's because the references to DC heroes feel more appropriate to a time where Superman and Batman were the reigning caped crusaders.  Maybe it's because of the use of slightly outdated tropes like sadistic bullies and D&D style monsters. Maybe it's just because there's been a drought of really kid-centric live action movies for a while, and the last time I can remember seeing this kind of superhero story involving kid heroes was fifteen years ago with "Sky High" and "Spy Kids."

"Shazam" is a couple of degrees darker and more serious than those movies, however.  Teenager Billy Batson (Asher Angel) is a foster kid who is frequently running away from his placements and getting into trouble.  He's never gotten over being separated from his mother, and keeps searching for her while resisting the efforts of anyone else to bond with him.  His latest faster parents are Rosa and Victor Vasquez (Marta Milans and Cooper Andrews), who run a group home. Billy has a passel of new foster siblings, including Freddie (Dylan Jack Grazer), who is obsessed with superheroes.  Freddie proves to be very helpful when a Wizard (Djimon Honsou) gives Billy superpowers, turning him into the adult superhero Shazam (Zachary Levi).

There's also a requisite villain, Dr. Sivana (Mark Strong), who is after the powers of Shazam, and marshalls the forces of the evil embodiments of the seven deadly sins to do it.  However, this is not nearly as interesting as watching Billy and Freddie fooling around with the Shazam powers, and Billy abusing the ability to turn into a musclebound, twenty-something version of himself in a goofy costume.  I wonder if the film would have been better if it had just embraced being a straight comedy, since Levi is so much fun pretending to be a teenager in the body of an adult. The trouble, however, is that he's a little too good at playing immature, to the point where Billy seems more level-headed when he's a kid.  Of course, that could just be because he looks like a kid during most of the film's big, emotional moments.   

As a superhero spectacular, there's not much new here.  We get a few smart observations and a few send-ups of common superhero behavior, but the usual good guy v. bad guy dynamics are very simple and familiar.  All the business with the wizard and the evil beasties is very silly - which the movie points out itself. However, tying the kid's power fantasy aspect of Shazam directly to Billy Batson's struggles as a foster kid is handled very well.  I appreciate the film so much for letting Billy confront some uncomfortable truths about himself and his situation. The portrayal of the group home as loving and supportive is also a rare and welcome thing to see.        

I'm a little concerned that the filmmakers let some aspects of the film get a wee bit too dark, considering the likely audience.  There's a fairly upsetting massacre scene with Sivana, assorted grievous injuries, and a handful of off-color jokes. These can be at odds with the parts of the movie where a stuffed tiger toy plays a big role in Billy's development, and Freddie collects superhero paraphernalia.  The film is set at Christmastime, and there's a heavy emphasis on wholesome family togetherness. I'd say the film is for preteens and older, but at the same time it's so kid-centric that I'd have a hard time recommending it to adults. 

As part of the wider DC universe, "Shazam" mostly keeps to itself.  There are plenty of references for those who enjoy such things, but this feels like a mostly self-contained universe that isn't quite the same as the one "Justice League" where happened.  The imagery is brighter and more stylized, to good effect, and the tone is much sweeter, even if it does come with a (perhaps misguided) edge. There's also a welcome specificity to the setting, with the story taking place in and around Philadelphia.  There are nearly as many references to Rocky Balboa as there are to Batman.  

The execution is shaky at times, but the filmmakers got the fundamentals right.  The kids are great. The humor is right. The messages are strong without feeling sappy.  It's a perfect movie for certain kids of a certain age - and they really don't make enough of them anymore.

---

Instagrammable

I don't use a lot of social media these days.  After wrestling with the decision for months, I decided to keep Facebook and tamp down on my privacy settings.  I still have a Twitter account but almost never use it. Ditto Linkedin and Nextdoor. Pinterest is mostly being used to amass a giant collection of movie poster images.  Reddit is the only site I use too much, mostly to chat about movies in obscure subreddits. I have Skype, but no other chat or messaging apps.

Then there's Instagram, which I admit that I created an account for just to score a couple of extra freebies for Disney Emoji Blitz.  Initially, I expected to have no use for it. It's a heavily graphics oriented system, meant for sharing pictures and videos. Instagram reminds me a lot of Pinterest or Tumblr in the way it sort of emulates a digital photo album or scrapbook, but the emphasis is on original content instead of grabbing existing images and videos from elsewhere on the web.  I definitely understand the appeal. You can follow celebrities like Adam Savage or The Rock, who mostly promote the things that they work on, but also offer glimpses of their personal lives. And there's something far more immediate and intimate about photos and videos than written text, like tweets.

Instagram isn't really suited to my needs or interests.  My blogging is primarily text based and I've always been wary of sharing too much online.  I'm always paranoid of any photos I post on Facebook showing too much. Instagram has also developed a rather unfortunate reputation these days because of the "influencer" culture that has developed there.  "Instagram models" can become rich and famous if they present the right image and attract enough followers. The popular Instagram photo filters can help to transform anyone into an unreal fantasy version of themselves.  There's a whole Reddit community devoted to skewering the most egregious examples.

And the result of this has been a significant chunk of the user base that is running afoul of a toxic digital environment full of impossible standards and raging narcissism.  Mental health professionals have warned that Instagram can wreak havoc on a person's well-being and happiness due to the constant exposure to only the most perfectly curated and touched-up moments from other people's lives.  As with Facebook, people only put the version of themselves online that they want other people to see, but on Instagram the impulse is even worse because of the cults of celebrity that aggressively push and exploit these images.  Kylie Jenner and Beyonce Knowles have the most followed accounts, and they make millions off of sponsored posts. It boggles the mind.

However, there are plenty of Instagram users that don't have anything to do with the influencers.  I have several artist friends with accounts, and found myself adding them to help boost their profiles.   I like seeing the new projects they're working on, often following in-progress pictures day by day. A couple of local organizations and businesses are active there too, and their accounts are another way to keep an eye out for events and sales.  My kid's daycare doesn't have a Facebook page, but it has an Instagram feed. Mindful of the kids' privacy, the photos are mostly of class art projects. And as a media junkie, I like being able to look at all the photos from events like this year's Met Gala or Comic-Con without having to wade through the ad-heavy sites of the usual gossip press.  

So put this down as another case of social media being what you make of it.  For every report of Instagram models behaving like brats for more subscribers, there's somebody using it to share art or to promote a good cause.  Currently the most liked post on Instagram - or on any social media - is the infamous egg picture posted in January, which was eventually revealed to be part of a mental health awareness campaign.  Some characterized its viral triumph as a win against celebrities and consumerism. I think it was just the latest bandwagon that everybody jumped on.

Instagram is big enough that I find it difficult to ignore. I still don't use it very much, but I've found it worth keeping an eye on.  For now.

----