Everybody knows they're going to die, but not everybody understands what that means. You could have definitely counted me among the blissfully ignorant, until I saw Charlie Kaufman's "Synecdoche, New York," the movie Roger Ebert picked as the best film of the last decade. "Synecdoche" delivered unto me an existential kick in the head. I watched it on DVD, three times in a single evening because I became so engrossed, and I've never seen it again since. Looking back, I think it may have actually triggered something between a quarterlife and midlife crisis. What kind of movie could cause this kind of reaction? Read on.
"Synecdoche, New York" follows the life of a theater director, Caden Cotard (Philip Seymour Hoffman), from middle age up to the end of his life. He has a wife, Adele (Catherine Keener), who abruptly leaves him one day, taking their four-year-old daughter Olive with her to Berlin. His personal life in crisis, Caden throws himself into his artistic work. With the help of a MacArthur Fellowship, he prepares to mount a massive new theater production that examines the minutiae of his own life and failures, and is bent on replicating every detail of his existence in a gigantic warehouse. Caden develops feelings for Hazel (Samantha Morton), a ticket-taker at the local theater, but ends up remarried to his leading lady Claire (Michelle Williams). In no time, Caden finds himself facing a second marriage on the rocks, a daughter growing up into a stranger, and a play that is spiraling out of control and threatening to engulf his own reality.
Movies have been made about the end of life for as long as they've made movies, from Leo McCarey's "Make Way for Tomorrow," to Akira Kurosawa's "Ikiru" to Ingmar Bergman's "The Seventh Seal." It's one of those subjects that almost every major artist tries to tackle at some point, and that impulse has produced some masterpieces. However, these films can be a difficult watch. Being confronted by your own mortality is never a comfortable experience, but it is often an illuminating one. "Synecdoche" is not only uncomfortable, it's vicious. Everything that possibly can go wrong in Caden's life does go wrong. Every one of his ambitions fails. Every personal relationship either becomes damaged beyond repair or cut short due to circumstances beyond his control. He wants desperately to do something artistically important, but only succeeds in trapping himself in a gigantic echo chamber of his own neuroses. In the end, Caden winds up miserable and alone, and it's almost unbearably sad to follow his decline.
And yet it's mesmerizing too. "Synecdoche, New York" was the directing debut of Charlie Kaufman, who penned "Being John Malkovitch," "Adaptation," and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind." I've read that "Synecdoche" started out as Kaufman's take on a horror movie, which would feature all the things that he was truly afraid of - failure, loneliness, alienation, and death. This certainly feels like his most personal story and his most unfiltered vision, stuffed to the gills with all matter of complicated visual symbolism, narrative paradoxes, and shifting frames of reality. One of my favorite images is Hazel's house, which is always literally on fire whenever we see it. She buys it, knowing full well that it will kill her eventually, but isn't that true of so many things in our lives? Or there's the way that time works in the movie, where Caden is astonished to find his estranged four-year-old daughter is suddenly a nine-year-old, and then a teenager, though barely any time has passed in his own frame of reference. Probably the most iconic visuals involve the warehouse, where the recreations of Caden's life proliferate into a series of nested universes, each with their own Caden and doubles of everyone he knows. One of the reasons I watched "Synecdoche" three times in quick succession is because it's so densely packed with material, and there's so much to take apart and examine and interpret.
In the end, though, what really hit home for me were the film's most basic, cautionary messages. This is what could happen if you don't pay attention to your loved ones. This is what could happen if you get too wrapped up in your own, selfish head. Life is finite and goes by much faster than you think it will. There are mistakes that cannot be fixed, and absences that can never be made up for. You only get one chance at this so don't screw it up. I sat up half the night thinking about the closing monologue, and that final, devastating meeting between Caden and Olive. I still find it hard to believe that such an uncompromising, thematically heavy film was actually made, the way Hollywood is these days, and that such an amazing cast was assembled for it. Hoffman's perfect as the disintegrating Caden Cotard, Samantha Morton was never more dowdy or more lovable. And I haven't even mentioned Emily Watson and Dianne Wiest and Jennifer Jason Leigh and Tom Noonan, who all do wonderful work.
"Synecdoche, New York" is not an especially entertaining film, is far from perfect, and often comes across as self-obsessed to the point of cannibalistic, but it is nothing less than masterpiece. I'm a little worried that Charlie Kaufman hasn't done anything since. If simply watching "Synecdoche" gave me an existential crisis, I can't imagine what writing and directing it must have done to Kaufman.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
In Defense of "Battle: Los Angeles"
I figured we had a couple of years before we were due for an "Independence Day" remake, but you know what? I don't mind. "Independence Day" was fun, dumb movie and "Battle: Los Angeles" is a fun, dumb movie, that the critics are savaging right now for not being more than what it is. Oh sure, "District 9" raised the bar for this kind of alien encounter story, and "Battle: Los Angeles" suffers by comparison on just about every level. However, there's no reason "Battle: Los Angeles" has to measure up to "District 9" when its ambitions are so much smaller. All it wants to be is a big, loud, entertaining summer action film, and that's exactly what it is - except, of course, this is the middle of March.
Story? Plot? There's not much of one to speak of. Alien invaders attack the earth, making landfall off the coasts of several major cities, including Los Angeles. Cue the panic and mayhem when they emerge from the waves and start shooting. "Battle: Los Angeles" follows one platoon of Marines as they set out to retrieve a group of trapped civilians before an impending airstrike levels Santa Monica. Characters? Your standard set of war movie types and tropes. The most prominent among them is Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart), who is on the verge of retirement, and still haunted by his last mission, where he lost several of the men under his command.
And then there's Doc (Adetokumboh M'Cormack), an African-born doctor-in-training, Martinez (Ramón Rodríguez), straight out of officer's school on his first command, Lockett (Cory Hardrict), whose brother was one of those killed on Nantz's last mission, Lenihan (Noel Fisher), still wet behind the ears, Kerns (Jim Parrack), who has PTSD, Harris (Ne-Yo), who is getting married, and Stavro (Gino Anthony Pesi), a transplanted New Yorker. A late arrival is Sgt. Santos (Michelle Rodriguez), who fills the aggressive female soldier quota for the film, and also functions as a handy plot device. Is it an absolute certainty that most of these characters won't survive to see the third act? Yup.
I expect that a lot of the rancor directed at this film comes from the fact that a lot of the techniques used by director Jonathan Liebsman have been done before, and to much better effect. Good luck finding an original frame in the whole picture. The shaky-cam documentary style is pretty old-hat by this point, though the action isn't as difficult to follow as I've seen in similar films. Several segments appear to have been lifted from modern war movies like "Black Hawk Down" and "The Hurt Locker." Most of the visuals related to the aliens, especially the big command and control tower, are so similar to "District 9" that you have to wonder if "Battle Los Angeles" simply borrowed a few of their templates. We never really see much of the alien invaders, who are perpetually encased in battle suits, and really exist only as targets to be shot at.
However, the real Achilles heel of the whole venture is the script. The dialogue is absolutely awful. Multiple characters repeat the same line or tidbit of information several times. The moments of melodrama are so awkward and obvious, you'll find yourself mentally ticking off the common cliches as they come up. "It was only a dog"? Check. "That came out of nowhere"? Check. "I led us straight into that ambush"? Check. Going out in a blaze of glory? Check. The big, emotional, pre-battle speech? Check. That last one falls to Aaron Eckhart to deliver, and though Eckhart is a very good actor and was putting considerable effort into the performance, I had a hard time keeping a straight face. There's not a single thing in the film that isn't telegraphed far, far in advance, with the help of some incredibly corny orchestral music, and to call the story predictable would be a generous understatement.
And yet I liked "Battle: Los Angeles." I thought it was a lot of fun to watch, the over-the-top jingoism of the Marines was refreshingly earnest and positive, several of the action sequences were a blast (literally), and the film's intentions were always very straightforward. Here are the good Marines on one side, and here are the bad aliens on the other. Things go boom and the audience cheers. End of story. Would I have liked some more context and complexity in the plot, more character depth, and better lines for poor Aaron Eckhart and the rest of the cast (a notably multi-ethnic, well rounded one)? Of course I would. But did these flaws keep me from enjoying a solid, by-the-book genre exercise that was never meant to be more than a big, souped-up alien invasion B-movie? Nope.
This is not a great film in any sense, or even a very good one. But it's harmless. And it's so much better than some of the alternatives, like those creatively offensive "Transformer" movies. If all you're looking for is a good time out, I say turn off the brain for a while, see the film, and enjoy the carnage.
Story? Plot? There's not much of one to speak of. Alien invaders attack the earth, making landfall off the coasts of several major cities, including Los Angeles. Cue the panic and mayhem when they emerge from the waves and start shooting. "Battle: Los Angeles" follows one platoon of Marines as they set out to retrieve a group of trapped civilians before an impending airstrike levels Santa Monica. Characters? Your standard set of war movie types and tropes. The most prominent among them is Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart), who is on the verge of retirement, and still haunted by his last mission, where he lost several of the men under his command.
And then there's Doc (Adetokumboh M'Cormack), an African-born doctor-in-training, Martinez (Ramón Rodríguez), straight out of officer's school on his first command, Lockett (Cory Hardrict), whose brother was one of those killed on Nantz's last mission, Lenihan (Noel Fisher), still wet behind the ears, Kerns (Jim Parrack), who has PTSD, Harris (Ne-Yo), who is getting married, and Stavro (Gino Anthony Pesi), a transplanted New Yorker. A late arrival is Sgt. Santos (Michelle Rodriguez), who fills the aggressive female soldier quota for the film, and also functions as a handy plot device. Is it an absolute certainty that most of these characters won't survive to see the third act? Yup.
I expect that a lot of the rancor directed at this film comes from the fact that a lot of the techniques used by director Jonathan Liebsman have been done before, and to much better effect. Good luck finding an original frame in the whole picture. The shaky-cam documentary style is pretty old-hat by this point, though the action isn't as difficult to follow as I've seen in similar films. Several segments appear to have been lifted from modern war movies like "Black Hawk Down" and "The Hurt Locker." Most of the visuals related to the aliens, especially the big command and control tower, are so similar to "District 9" that you have to wonder if "Battle Los Angeles" simply borrowed a few of their templates. We never really see much of the alien invaders, who are perpetually encased in battle suits, and really exist only as targets to be shot at.
However, the real Achilles heel of the whole venture is the script. The dialogue is absolutely awful. Multiple characters repeat the same line or tidbit of information several times. The moments of melodrama are so awkward and obvious, you'll find yourself mentally ticking off the common cliches as they come up. "It was only a dog"? Check. "That came out of nowhere"? Check. "I led us straight into that ambush"? Check. Going out in a blaze of glory? Check. The big, emotional, pre-battle speech? Check. That last one falls to Aaron Eckhart to deliver, and though Eckhart is a very good actor and was putting considerable effort into the performance, I had a hard time keeping a straight face. There's not a single thing in the film that isn't telegraphed far, far in advance, with the help of some incredibly corny orchestral music, and to call the story predictable would be a generous understatement.
And yet I liked "Battle: Los Angeles." I thought it was a lot of fun to watch, the over-the-top jingoism of the Marines was refreshingly earnest and positive, several of the action sequences were a blast (literally), and the film's intentions were always very straightforward. Here are the good Marines on one side, and here are the bad aliens on the other. Things go boom and the audience cheers. End of story. Would I have liked some more context and complexity in the plot, more character depth, and better lines for poor Aaron Eckhart and the rest of the cast (a notably multi-ethnic, well rounded one)? Of course I would. But did these flaws keep me from enjoying a solid, by-the-book genre exercise that was never meant to be more than a big, souped-up alien invasion B-movie? Nope.
This is not a great film in any sense, or even a very good one. But it's harmless. And it's so much better than some of the alternatives, like those creatively offensive "Transformer" movies. If all you're looking for is a good time out, I say turn off the brain for a while, see the film, and enjoy the carnage.
Friday, March 11, 2011
The Existential Melancholy of "Never Let Me Go"
Viewers are better off not knowing many of the particulars of the the story in "Never Let Me Go," based on a much-lauded 2005 novel by Kazuo Ishiguro, but it is difficult to discuss the film without reference to some spoilers. I'll try to be as vague as I can, but for those of you seeking to avoid knowing too much, I'll give you the short version up front. "Never Let Me Go" is a heartbreaker, a slow, subtle, difficult parable about love and mortality in an unkind world. It will no doubt frustrate and bore some viewers as much as it will move others, but there's no question that it is a very good film and one that I've found hard to stop thinking about.
Still reading? Full speed and spoilers ahead.
"Never Let Me Go" begins at an English boarding school in the 70s called Hailsham, where we meet our three main characters, Kathy, Tommy, and Ruth, as children. The headmistress, Miss Emily (Charlotte Rampling), tells her pupils very seriously that Hailsham students are special, and there are many sinister clues throughout the first segment of the film hinting at why. The children wear electronic monitoring wristbands, and their health is checked constantly. Outsiders keep their distance from the children, and a newly arrived young teacher, Miss Lucy (Sally Hawkins), seems disturbed by the gruesome stories and rumors that circulate around the school. Kathy, however, is occupied with a developing affection for Tommy, who is a little slower than many in their class, and has a tendency to get frustrated because he's not good at things like art and sports. At first Kathy's affections seem to be reciprocated, but then her best friend Ruth, more aggressive and assertive, decides she likes Tommy and the two pair off.
And this is the main concern of "Never Let Me Go," the relationships among these three characters. The revelation of why the children are special, and why they are treated differently is the stuff of a thousand trashy science-fiction novels. In a different film, and there have been several dealing with a similar premise, the plot would be all about the three characters trying to run away from their fates, trying to subvert a terrible and unfair society that has subjugated them. Kathy, Tommy, Ruth, and all the others like them, are constantly trying to find a way to delay the inevitable, but there's the sense that there is nowhere left for them to escape to, that the mechanism of their doom is simply too deeply entrenched and all-encompassing in their world to be defied. So the story is about trying to live and love in the bounds of severe restrictions and limitations. More than that, it's about the emotional reality of accepting a life where misery and loss are meted out too quickly, too often.
We follow the three children into young adulthood, when they leave Hailsham, and then to hospitals and "Care Centers" where they unexpectedly reunite about ten years later. In these latter segments Kathy (Carey Mulligan), Tommy (Andrew Garfield), and Ruth (Keira Knightley) clash and reconcile and learn more hard truths about their world and their circumstances. The performances are excellent, especially Mulligan's as the grown-up Kathy. The trio seem to age decades in the blink of an eye, beyond even the ages that they're supposed to be portraying as they inch closer and closer to desperation. The adult actors are also much better than the child performers at conveying that there's something slightly off and unnatural about the characters, that perhaps their extreme naivete and difficulty with social interactions aren't simply products of their isolated upbringing. This is wisely left for viewers to ponder over on their own, along with many other subtle details that point to certain truths that are never directly acknowledged.
And so the film is moody, serious, and slow, evoking a plethora of deep, uncomfortable emotions. It requires no small amount of patience to fully examine and understand. No wonder, then, that "Never Let Me Go" ends up resembling another famous adaptation of an Ishiguro novel, "The Remains of the Day," more than any science-fiction antecedents. Genre fans hoping for a typical action picture here are sure to be disappointed, if not utterly depressed after a viewing. And yet, though "Never Let Me Go" is a sad story, the film isn't gloomy or especially dark. It occupies an alternate reality in more than one sense. Not only does it take place in a Britain that is the product of an alternate timeline, but the children are often seen inhabiting the places that the rest of society has left behind or discarded. Mark Romanek's visuals are delicate and carefully constructed, full of old and fading objects, buildings that have seen better days, and the constant presence of the natural world. There's a sense of nostalgia for another time, a gentler, kinder time that is slowly being eaten away by the ruthless future.
Some quick kudos to Alex Garland's screenplay, Rachel Portman's score, and Adam Kimmel's cinematography, especially for that last scene of Kathy at the field. Those last images that are going to stay with me for a very, very long time.
Still reading? Full speed and spoilers ahead.
"Never Let Me Go" begins at an English boarding school in the 70s called Hailsham, where we meet our three main characters, Kathy, Tommy, and Ruth, as children. The headmistress, Miss Emily (Charlotte Rampling), tells her pupils very seriously that Hailsham students are special, and there are many sinister clues throughout the first segment of the film hinting at why. The children wear electronic monitoring wristbands, and their health is checked constantly. Outsiders keep their distance from the children, and a newly arrived young teacher, Miss Lucy (Sally Hawkins), seems disturbed by the gruesome stories and rumors that circulate around the school. Kathy, however, is occupied with a developing affection for Tommy, who is a little slower than many in their class, and has a tendency to get frustrated because he's not good at things like art and sports. At first Kathy's affections seem to be reciprocated, but then her best friend Ruth, more aggressive and assertive, decides she likes Tommy and the two pair off.
And this is the main concern of "Never Let Me Go," the relationships among these three characters. The revelation of why the children are special, and why they are treated differently is the stuff of a thousand trashy science-fiction novels. In a different film, and there have been several dealing with a similar premise, the plot would be all about the three characters trying to run away from their fates, trying to subvert a terrible and unfair society that has subjugated them. Kathy, Tommy, Ruth, and all the others like them, are constantly trying to find a way to delay the inevitable, but there's the sense that there is nowhere left for them to escape to, that the mechanism of their doom is simply too deeply entrenched and all-encompassing in their world to be defied. So the story is about trying to live and love in the bounds of severe restrictions and limitations. More than that, it's about the emotional reality of accepting a life where misery and loss are meted out too quickly, too often.
We follow the three children into young adulthood, when they leave Hailsham, and then to hospitals and "Care Centers" where they unexpectedly reunite about ten years later. In these latter segments Kathy (Carey Mulligan), Tommy (Andrew Garfield), and Ruth (Keira Knightley) clash and reconcile and learn more hard truths about their world and their circumstances. The performances are excellent, especially Mulligan's as the grown-up Kathy. The trio seem to age decades in the blink of an eye, beyond even the ages that they're supposed to be portraying as they inch closer and closer to desperation. The adult actors are also much better than the child performers at conveying that there's something slightly off and unnatural about the characters, that perhaps their extreme naivete and difficulty with social interactions aren't simply products of their isolated upbringing. This is wisely left for viewers to ponder over on their own, along with many other subtle details that point to certain truths that are never directly acknowledged.
And so the film is moody, serious, and slow, evoking a plethora of deep, uncomfortable emotions. It requires no small amount of patience to fully examine and understand. No wonder, then, that "Never Let Me Go" ends up resembling another famous adaptation of an Ishiguro novel, "The Remains of the Day," more than any science-fiction antecedents. Genre fans hoping for a typical action picture here are sure to be disappointed, if not utterly depressed after a viewing. And yet, though "Never Let Me Go" is a sad story, the film isn't gloomy or especially dark. It occupies an alternate reality in more than one sense. Not only does it take place in a Britain that is the product of an alternate timeline, but the children are often seen inhabiting the places that the rest of society has left behind or discarded. Mark Romanek's visuals are delicate and carefully constructed, full of old and fading objects, buildings that have seen better days, and the constant presence of the natural world. There's a sense of nostalgia for another time, a gentler, kinder time that is slowly being eaten away by the ruthless future.
Some quick kudos to Alex Garland's screenplay, Rachel Portman's score, and Adam Kimmel's cinematography, especially for that last scene of Kathy at the field. Those last images that are going to stay with me for a very, very long time.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
My Favorite Movie, Age 6 and Up
It's been getting much too grim and serious around here. So, for fun, here is a list of movies that I have claimed were my favorites, at various points in my development as a pretentious movie fan.
Age 6: "Dumbo" - I have watched "Dumbo" countless times, and it is imprinted upon my subconscious to such an extent that I really don't know how I would have turned out without it. I can trace so many things back to this movie - my love of stories about outcasts and loners, a fascination with the cool, brain-warping psychedelia of the Pink Elephants sequence, and of course the tearjerker "Baby Mine" number, which impressed upon me that it's perfectly okay to have moments in movies where you're supposed to feel sad. Looking back, "Dumbo" was a perfect kids' movie. It runs barely over an hour, the hero is a silent character who is universally relatable, and it summons up so many primal emotions about parents and separation. Oh, and of course "Dumbo" cemented my life-long love of cartoons. I'll never, ever be too old for them.
Age 12: "Beauty and the Beast" - The Disney Renaissance happened right around my preteen years, and living in Southern California, it was all Disney, Disney, Disney until well into high school. But then, everybody back in the early 90s was in love with these films, the way people love PIXAR films today. AMPAS gave "Beauty and the Beast" a Best Picture nomination in 1991, and many critics thought it had a serious shot at taking home the statuette. I think that might have been the first time I seriously followed the awards race. Twenty years later, upon subsequent rewatches, I'm always impressed at how unapologetically romantic the movie is, while modern animated spectaculars are more reluctant to get all touchy-feely. I don't think it matches up to the older Disney films anymore, but "Beauty and the Beast" was definitely the high point of the studio's comeback.
Age 15: "Edward Scissorhands" - Ah, Johnny Depp. We have a history, he and I, chronicled more fully in this blog post over here. I was never an alienated Goth, the audience "Scissorhands" is stereotypically linked to, but these were my artsy weirdo teenage years, and I had my share of angst. My brain full of wonky hormones, I declared dreck like "Newsies" and "Hook" my favorite films. And then came "Edward Scissorhands." Moody. Weird. Awesome. I didn't see "Scissorhands" in theaters, but only much, much later on television. I made a VHS copy that I played over and over again, not realizing that the broadcast version was edited, and missing key scenes. Today, there's a lot in the film I dislike. The satire of suburbia is too garish and mean, and Winona Ryder was terrible as the female lead. Depp's still great though. And Vincent Price. And all the Tim Burton-y visuals.
Age 17: "Amadeus" - This remains my mother's favorite. She's a classical music lover with a thing for stories about composers. I must have seen "Amadeus" a dozen times growing up, even though we didn't have a copy in the house until I bought my mother one. The soundtrack is incomparable. The performances are iconic. The production design is astonishing to look at. When people talked about epic films, this is the one that I always thought of, though the action rarely leaves Vienna. And in my head, it was a serious and important film. So at the age where I decided I wanted to be serious and important, I started telling people "Amadeus" was my favorite movie. I think it was really still "Edward Scissorhands" for a couple more years, but I liked "Amadeus" perfectly well too. F. Murray Abraham's Salieri is such a lovable misanthropic bastard, and one of my secret heroes.
Age 21: "Amelie" - Notice something about the previous entries? Aside from "Beauty and the Beast," none of these films were new releases by the time I saw them. My parents rarely went out to movies, so I rarely did either. That changed when I got to college and turned into a raging cinephile. I wanted to watch everything, all the stuff I'd been reading about and hearing people talk about for years. I saw new releases in theaters regularly, and was lucky enough to also go to several college preview screenings. One of these was for "Amelie," Jean-Pierre Jeunet's fantastic, loopy film about love and Paris. It was the right film at the right time, and I was swept up in hype and euphoria. I was topical! I was current! I was watching movies in French! I was pretentious and there was no turning back. I still enjoy "Amelie," and think it's the best thing that Jeunet ever did.
Age 25: "The Princess Bride" - Here's where I started getting a little diplomatic. People don't want to know that your favorite movie is some foreign obscurity that they've never heard of or a downer indie from the last century. They want to know that you've got something in common with them, a cultural touchstone that you can both agree on. "The Princess Bride" is a fine and wonderful movie, and a great antidote for a bad mood. It's also the one that practically every woman of my generation acknowledges as worthy of adoration, along with "Dirty Dancing" and "Ghost." With the men of a certain age, I'd talk up "The Blues Brothers," and "Fight Club," but "The Princess Bride" was also acceptable because of the fight scenes. Every guy secretly wants to be Inigo Montoya. In actuality, my favorite movie around this time was probably Akira Kurosawa's "Ikiru." So, still pretentious, but I knew when to keep it to myself.
So what's my favorite movie now? I honestly have no idea. I like a lot of films an awful lot, new and old, foreign and domestic. "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" is high on the list. So are "Mon Oncle," "Brazil," "The Passion of Joan of Arc," "The Shining," "The Devil's Backbone," "My Fair Lady," "Spirited Away," "The Trial, the 1944 "Jane Eyre," Kurosawa's "Ran," and many, many more. What can I say? I'm fickle and I don't want to commit. There are too many great films to have just one favorite.
Age 6: "Dumbo" - I have watched "Dumbo" countless times, and it is imprinted upon my subconscious to such an extent that I really don't know how I would have turned out without it. I can trace so many things back to this movie - my love of stories about outcasts and loners, a fascination with the cool, brain-warping psychedelia of the Pink Elephants sequence, and of course the tearjerker "Baby Mine" number, which impressed upon me that it's perfectly okay to have moments in movies where you're supposed to feel sad. Looking back, "Dumbo" was a perfect kids' movie. It runs barely over an hour, the hero is a silent character who is universally relatable, and it summons up so many primal emotions about parents and separation. Oh, and of course "Dumbo" cemented my life-long love of cartoons. I'll never, ever be too old for them.
Age 12: "Beauty and the Beast" - The Disney Renaissance happened right around my preteen years, and living in Southern California, it was all Disney, Disney, Disney until well into high school. But then, everybody back in the early 90s was in love with these films, the way people love PIXAR films today. AMPAS gave "Beauty and the Beast" a Best Picture nomination in 1991, and many critics thought it had a serious shot at taking home the statuette. I think that might have been the first time I seriously followed the awards race. Twenty years later, upon subsequent rewatches, I'm always impressed at how unapologetically romantic the movie is, while modern animated spectaculars are more reluctant to get all touchy-feely. I don't think it matches up to the older Disney films anymore, but "Beauty and the Beast" was definitely the high point of the studio's comeback.
Age 15: "Edward Scissorhands" - Ah, Johnny Depp. We have a history, he and I, chronicled more fully in this blog post over here. I was never an alienated Goth, the audience "Scissorhands" is stereotypically linked to, but these were my artsy weirdo teenage years, and I had my share of angst. My brain full of wonky hormones, I declared dreck like "Newsies" and "Hook" my favorite films. And then came "Edward Scissorhands." Moody. Weird. Awesome. I didn't see "Scissorhands" in theaters, but only much, much later on television. I made a VHS copy that I played over and over again, not realizing that the broadcast version was edited, and missing key scenes. Today, there's a lot in the film I dislike. The satire of suburbia is too garish and mean, and Winona Ryder was terrible as the female lead. Depp's still great though. And Vincent Price. And all the Tim Burton-y visuals.
Age 17: "Amadeus" - This remains my mother's favorite. She's a classical music lover with a thing for stories about composers. I must have seen "Amadeus" a dozen times growing up, even though we didn't have a copy in the house until I bought my mother one. The soundtrack is incomparable. The performances are iconic. The production design is astonishing to look at. When people talked about epic films, this is the one that I always thought of, though the action rarely leaves Vienna. And in my head, it was a serious and important film. So at the age where I decided I wanted to be serious and important, I started telling people "Amadeus" was my favorite movie. I think it was really still "Edward Scissorhands" for a couple more years, but I liked "Amadeus" perfectly well too. F. Murray Abraham's Salieri is such a lovable misanthropic bastard, and one of my secret heroes.
Age 21: "Amelie" - Notice something about the previous entries? Aside from "Beauty and the Beast," none of these films were new releases by the time I saw them. My parents rarely went out to movies, so I rarely did either. That changed when I got to college and turned into a raging cinephile. I wanted to watch everything, all the stuff I'd been reading about and hearing people talk about for years. I saw new releases in theaters regularly, and was lucky enough to also go to several college preview screenings. One of these was for "Amelie," Jean-Pierre Jeunet's fantastic, loopy film about love and Paris. It was the right film at the right time, and I was swept up in hype and euphoria. I was topical! I was current! I was watching movies in French! I was pretentious and there was no turning back. I still enjoy "Amelie," and think it's the best thing that Jeunet ever did.
Age 25: "The Princess Bride" - Here's where I started getting a little diplomatic. People don't want to know that your favorite movie is some foreign obscurity that they've never heard of or a downer indie from the last century. They want to know that you've got something in common with them, a cultural touchstone that you can both agree on. "The Princess Bride" is a fine and wonderful movie, and a great antidote for a bad mood. It's also the one that practically every woman of my generation acknowledges as worthy of adoration, along with "Dirty Dancing" and "Ghost." With the men of a certain age, I'd talk up "The Blues Brothers," and "Fight Club," but "The Princess Bride" was also acceptable because of the fight scenes. Every guy secretly wants to be Inigo Montoya. In actuality, my favorite movie around this time was probably Akira Kurosawa's "Ikiru." So, still pretentious, but I knew when to keep it to myself.
So what's my favorite movie now? I honestly have no idea. I like a lot of films an awful lot, new and old, foreign and domestic. "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" is high on the list. So are "Mon Oncle," "Brazil," "The Passion of Joan of Arc," "The Shining," "The Devil's Backbone," "My Fair Lady," "Spirited Away," "The Trial, the 1944 "Jane Eyre," Kurosawa's "Ran," and many, many more. What can I say? I'm fickle and I don't want to commit. There are too many great films to have just one favorite.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
What the New Facebook Rental Service is Really All About
In early February, Netflix was sitting pretty, signing up plenty of new subscribers every day, raking in the revenue, and watching its stock prices go through the roof. It was the undisputed king of streaming media, with no real competitors in sight. Now, hardly a month later, it seems like everyone is muscling in on the online movie rental market, and investors are running scared. Netflix stock dropped nearly six percent yesterday, on the news that Facebook has launched a movie rental service, and inked a deal with Warner Brothers for their content. It joins Amazon Prime, Redbox, Hulu Plus, iTunes, Comcast XFINITY, Vudu, Best Buy CinemaNow, and Google TV, who are all ready to take a bite out of Netflix's bottom line. Full disclosure - I'm a Netflix shareholder and I do have a financial interest in what's going on here.
But that said, I have no idea how Facebook's proposed rental service really poses any threat to Netflix. Facebook rolled out "The Dark Knight" yesterday, available to rent at thirty Facebook credits, or $3. More Warner Brothers titles are sure to follow. However, renting digital copies of individual films is what Amazon and iTunes are already doing, and for essentially the same prices. And Warner Brothers keeping its content off of Netflix's streaming service is old news. The real question is whether other studios are going to follow suit, and whether this is the first step in Facebook launching a subscription-based service, which would be be more significant challenges to Netflix's business. The most immediate innovations Facebook offers are the ability to rent films using Facebook credits, and being able to "like" and "friend" a film, a move toward integrating the movie watching experience into the social networking experience.
However, the really interesting story here is not that Facebook is renting movies, but that Warner Brothers is continuing to do its best to undermine the new media consumption models that Netflix and Redbox have created. The big studios have not been happy with these two lately, blaming them for plummeting DVD sales and rental revenues. Earlier in the year, Warners got both companies to agree to a 28-delay after new Warner Brothers titles like "Harry Potter" and "Due Date" hit DVD before they could be offered rental. Netflix and Redbox have similar agreements with several other studios, like Sony and Twentieth Century Fox. These tactics don't seem to have helped DVD sales. However, what drives the studios particularly crazy is the pricing that Redbox and Netflix offer to their customers. Redbox rentals are $1 a night for most titles. Netflix's monthly plans start at $7.99 a month for its unlimited streaming-only service, and $9.99 if you'd also like to rent DVDs by-mail.
Netflix and Redbox prices are far too low, as for as the studios are concerned. Just look at what Warner Brothers is doing with the new Facebook rentals. Warners still thinks that $3 is a fair price to rent a digital copy of "The Dark Knight" for two nights, a film that is nearly three years old, and had its basic cable premiere on TNT a month ago. By this point, even brick-and-mortar video stores are renting it for a dollar a night. Warner Brothers receives $2.10 for every $3 digital rental of "The Dark Knight" on Facebook, according to the Wall Street Journal. They only get a fraction of that for a Redbox or Netflix rental, because the unit pricing is so much lower, though the volume of rentals is almost certainly be higher. I can see the price of Facebook rentals coming down to encourage first-time users, the way Hulu's subscription plan pricing did, but not by much and not for long.
Warners' real interest here is ensuring that viewers believe that $3 is what they should be paying to rent a movie, not $1 a night from Redbox and not the $.50 per film I average with Netflix ($1.25 if you only count the physical DVDs). I suspect that the goal is ultimately to get us to treat online digital streams of Warners' films like pay-per-view or cable video-on-demand (VOD) content, which is traditionally pricier than rentals. Will Warners and Facebook be successful? I have no idea. It's not in my best interests as a consumer if they do, but we're talking about gigantic media companies with armies of marketers and financiers behind them, billing this as the Next Big Thing. The fuss was loud enough to make Wall Street panic yesterday. And who knows? Maybe Facebook will do something brilliant and innovative with their new movie rental app. Maybe they'll join forces with one of the other rental services. Maybe they'll digitize the DVD extras. Maybe they'll offer exclusive content. I know better than to underestimate Facebook.
And yet I wonder why the inaugural Facebook rental title was "The Dark Knight" instead of last summer's Warner Brothers blockbuster, "Inception." It's already been on DVD for three months, and is enjoying some new buzz thanks to its recent Oscar wins. A copy of "Inception" is even a pre-loaded app on the new Android Galaxy 4G phone. Could Warners still be worried that digital rentals of the film might eat into their profits on those shrinking DVD sales? Let's see how far that attitude is going to get them in the online streaming business.
But that said, I have no idea how Facebook's proposed rental service really poses any threat to Netflix. Facebook rolled out "The Dark Knight" yesterday, available to rent at thirty Facebook credits, or $3. More Warner Brothers titles are sure to follow. However, renting digital copies of individual films is what Amazon and iTunes are already doing, and for essentially the same prices. And Warner Brothers keeping its content off of Netflix's streaming service is old news. The real question is whether other studios are going to follow suit, and whether this is the first step in Facebook launching a subscription-based service, which would be be more significant challenges to Netflix's business. The most immediate innovations Facebook offers are the ability to rent films using Facebook credits, and being able to "like" and "friend" a film, a move toward integrating the movie watching experience into the social networking experience.
However, the really interesting story here is not that Facebook is renting movies, but that Warner Brothers is continuing to do its best to undermine the new media consumption models that Netflix and Redbox have created. The big studios have not been happy with these two lately, blaming them for plummeting DVD sales and rental revenues. Earlier in the year, Warners got both companies to agree to a 28-delay after new Warner Brothers titles like "Harry Potter" and "Due Date" hit DVD before they could be offered rental. Netflix and Redbox have similar agreements with several other studios, like Sony and Twentieth Century Fox. These tactics don't seem to have helped DVD sales. However, what drives the studios particularly crazy is the pricing that Redbox and Netflix offer to their customers. Redbox rentals are $1 a night for most titles. Netflix's monthly plans start at $7.99 a month for its unlimited streaming-only service, and $9.99 if you'd also like to rent DVDs by-mail.
Netflix and Redbox prices are far too low, as for as the studios are concerned. Just look at what Warner Brothers is doing with the new Facebook rentals. Warners still thinks that $3 is a fair price to rent a digital copy of "The Dark Knight" for two nights, a film that is nearly three years old, and had its basic cable premiere on TNT a month ago. By this point, even brick-and-mortar video stores are renting it for a dollar a night. Warner Brothers receives $2.10 for every $3 digital rental of "The Dark Knight" on Facebook, according to the Wall Street Journal. They only get a fraction of that for a Redbox or Netflix rental, because the unit pricing is so much lower, though the volume of rentals is almost certainly be higher. I can see the price of Facebook rentals coming down to encourage first-time users, the way Hulu's subscription plan pricing did, but not by much and not for long.
Warners' real interest here is ensuring that viewers believe that $3 is what they should be paying to rent a movie, not $1 a night from Redbox and not the $.50 per film I average with Netflix ($1.25 if you only count the physical DVDs). I suspect that the goal is ultimately to get us to treat online digital streams of Warners' films like pay-per-view or cable video-on-demand (VOD) content, which is traditionally pricier than rentals. Will Warners and Facebook be successful? I have no idea. It's not in my best interests as a consumer if they do, but we're talking about gigantic media companies with armies of marketers and financiers behind them, billing this as the Next Big Thing. The fuss was loud enough to make Wall Street panic yesterday. And who knows? Maybe Facebook will do something brilliant and innovative with their new movie rental app. Maybe they'll join forces with one of the other rental services. Maybe they'll digitize the DVD extras. Maybe they'll offer exclusive content. I know better than to underestimate Facebook.
And yet I wonder why the inaugural Facebook rental title was "The Dark Knight" instead of last summer's Warner Brothers blockbuster, "Inception." It's already been on DVD for three months, and is enjoying some new buzz thanks to its recent Oscar wins. A copy of "Inception" is even a pre-loaded app on the new Android Galaxy 4G phone. Could Warners still be worried that digital rentals of the film might eat into their profits on those shrinking DVD sales? Let's see how far that attitude is going to get them in the online streaming business.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
"Once Upon a Time" + "Grimm" = "Fables"?
It's pilot season in Hollywood, and one of ABC's new hour-long offerings is "Once Upon a Time," which is all about "a woman with a troubled past who is drawn into a small town in Maine where the magic and mystery of Fairy Tales just may be real." "Lost" alums Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz are producing, and the cast already includes Ginnifer Goodwin ("Big Love"), Lana Parrilla ("Miami Medical"), and Robert Carlyle, who I still think of as Gaz from "The Full Monty." They'll be playing characters based on Snow White, the Evil Queen, and Rumpelstiltskin respectively.
Fairy tales are a major trend in Hollywood this year, with projects based on "Little Red Riding Hood," and "Beauty and the Beast" in theaters this week, and new reinventions of "Hansel and Gretel," "Snow White," "Jack and the Beanstalk," and more on the way. "Once Upon a Time" isn't the only upcoming TV series based on fairy-tale folks in the modern world either. Over at NBC, writer-producers David Greenwalt and Jim Kouf are working on "Grimm," a "dark but fantastical cop drama about a world in which characters inspired by Grimm’s Fairy Tales exist." The pilot cast includes Silas Weir Mitchell ("My Name is Earl"), Bitsie Tulloch ("Lonelygirl15"), Russell Hornsby ("Lincoln Heights"), and David Giuntoli ("Privileged").
Comic book fans might be wondering, however, whatever became of another fairy-tale themed TV project that both NBC and ABC were involved in at various times, one that has similarities to the premises of both "Once Upon a Time" and "Grimm." I"m talking about "Fables," which NBC had in development in 2005, and ABC greenlit for a pilot back in December of 2008. The Vertigo-published comic book series, written by Bill Willingham since its inception in 2002, is one of the most popular comics that is still currently ongoing. It just passed the one-hundred issue mark in December. I've read about half the series so far, up through the sixth trade paperback, and it's fun stuff. "Fables" follows a group of fairy-tale characters in the modern day, who are living in exile after having been forced from their homelands by a villain known as the Adversary. Snow White, the deputy mayor, and Bigby Wolf, a lawman with a past, are the primary figures responsible for keeping the peace in the community.
Let me make it clear that I'm not accusing ABC and NBC of any impropriety, even though "Fables" fans have been kvetching and pointing out similarities nonstop since the projects were announced. Both "Once Upon a Time" and "Grimm" have premises that are generic enough that they aren't ringing any alarm bells, and "Fables" certainly wasn't the first to explore the idea of fairy-tale characters existing in the real world. I can even understand why both networks' attempts to turn the comic into a television series probably failed. "Fables" would be extremely costly to bring to the screen with any faithfulness. It's full of talking animals, fairy tale kingdoms, magical transformations, and epic battle sequences. It also features some pretty twisted takes on familiar characters like Prince Charming, Pinocchio, and Goldilocks.
And of course, the original fairy-tale characters are public domain while the "Fables" versions of them are not. "Fables" may be well loved in the comics community, but it's probably not well known enough by the general public to add much value to a television project on the basis of its name and reputation alone. It was clearly easier for ABC and NBC to start over from scratch and come up with their own properties, rooted more strongly in traditional TV genres. "Grimm" is pretty clearly a crime procedural and "Once Upon a Time" will probably be some kind of mystery drama. I expect that if the fairy-tale trend continues, "Fables" may get an adaptation yet, since its material is pretty strong and every comic-loving fanboy on the Internet keeps bringing the title up in every discussion of "Once Upon a Time" and "Grimm."
If these two shows do well, it may actually spur more interest in "Fables." If they tank, it may signal to the networks that fairy-tale properties are a bad bet. So "Fables" fans shouldn't be too quick to badmouth them sight unseen. I love genre stuff, so I'll be checking out both shows regardless - assuming they make it past the pilot stage and actually go to series. And if anything too similar to "Fables" does pop up in their plots, like a gun-toting Goldilocks or a serial womanizer Prince Charming, then we can unleash the proverbial hounds. And any Big Bad Wolves in reserve too.
Fairy tales are a major trend in Hollywood this year, with projects based on "Little Red Riding Hood," and "Beauty and the Beast" in theaters this week, and new reinventions of "Hansel and Gretel," "Snow White," "Jack and the Beanstalk," and more on the way. "Once Upon a Time" isn't the only upcoming TV series based on fairy-tale folks in the modern world either. Over at NBC, writer-producers David Greenwalt and Jim Kouf are working on "Grimm," a "dark but fantastical cop drama about a world in which characters inspired by Grimm’s Fairy Tales exist." The pilot cast includes Silas Weir Mitchell ("My Name is Earl"), Bitsie Tulloch ("Lonelygirl15"), Russell Hornsby ("Lincoln Heights"), and David Giuntoli ("Privileged").
Comic book fans might be wondering, however, whatever became of another fairy-tale themed TV project that both NBC and ABC were involved in at various times, one that has similarities to the premises of both "Once Upon a Time" and "Grimm." I"m talking about "Fables," which NBC had in development in 2005, and ABC greenlit for a pilot back in December of 2008. The Vertigo-published comic book series, written by Bill Willingham since its inception in 2002, is one of the most popular comics that is still currently ongoing. It just passed the one-hundred issue mark in December. I've read about half the series so far, up through the sixth trade paperback, and it's fun stuff. "Fables" follows a group of fairy-tale characters in the modern day, who are living in exile after having been forced from their homelands by a villain known as the Adversary. Snow White, the deputy mayor, and Bigby Wolf, a lawman with a past, are the primary figures responsible for keeping the peace in the community.
Let me make it clear that I'm not accusing ABC and NBC of any impropriety, even though "Fables" fans have been kvetching and pointing out similarities nonstop since the projects were announced. Both "Once Upon a Time" and "Grimm" have premises that are generic enough that they aren't ringing any alarm bells, and "Fables" certainly wasn't the first to explore the idea of fairy-tale characters existing in the real world. I can even understand why both networks' attempts to turn the comic into a television series probably failed. "Fables" would be extremely costly to bring to the screen with any faithfulness. It's full of talking animals, fairy tale kingdoms, magical transformations, and epic battle sequences. It also features some pretty twisted takes on familiar characters like Prince Charming, Pinocchio, and Goldilocks.
And of course, the original fairy-tale characters are public domain while the "Fables" versions of them are not. "Fables" may be well loved in the comics community, but it's probably not well known enough by the general public to add much value to a television project on the basis of its name and reputation alone. It was clearly easier for ABC and NBC to start over from scratch and come up with their own properties, rooted more strongly in traditional TV genres. "Grimm" is pretty clearly a crime procedural and "Once Upon a Time" will probably be some kind of mystery drama. I expect that if the fairy-tale trend continues, "Fables" may get an adaptation yet, since its material is pretty strong and every comic-loving fanboy on the Internet keeps bringing the title up in every discussion of "Once Upon a Time" and "Grimm."
If these two shows do well, it may actually spur more interest in "Fables." If they tank, it may signal to the networks that fairy-tale properties are a bad bet. So "Fables" fans shouldn't be too quick to badmouth them sight unseen. I love genre stuff, so I'll be checking out both shows regardless - assuming they make it past the pilot stage and actually go to series. And if anything too similar to "Fables" does pop up in their plots, like a gun-toting Goldilocks or a serial womanizer Prince Charming, then we can unleash the proverbial hounds. And any Big Bad Wolves in reserve too.
Monday, March 7, 2011
I Think We Need to Let "Firefly" Go
The 2003 science fiction series "Firefly" is in the news again, the reruns having recently made their debut on the Science Channel, augmented by new segments about the scientific content of the show. Of course, that's not why the show is getting buzzed about again. You see, a couple of weeks ago, Entertainment Weekly sat down with "Firefly" star Nathan Fillion for a little reminiscing. Fillion not only said that he'd be happy to play Captain Mal Reynolds again, but made the following statement: "If I got $300 million from the California Lottery, the first thing I would do is buy the rights to "Firefly," make it on my own, and distribute it on the Internet."
And then, well, eager "Firefly" fans on the internet did what all eager media fans on the internet are wont to do - they rose to the challenge and started a fundraising campaign to help Fillion buy the rights to "Firefly" and resurrect the show. This has since been changed into a campaign to buy the show's rights through an independent entity, since obviously poor Nathan Fillion never intended on getting caught up in the middle of this kind of scheme as a result of a simple off-hand comment. I'm sure the fans behind the campaign are all very well-meaning, but their chances of success are infinitesimally small. "Firefly" and its spinoff film "Serenity," are owned by FOX and Universal, very large companies that are still making a bundle off the property and its ancillary merchandise. Even if the fans could raise the money to buy the rights, it's unlikely either company would be in a hurry to sell them.
If, by some miracle, the "Firefly" rights could be acquired, what then? You'd still have to get the money to put the series back into production, which would be another couple million per episode for quality comparable to the 2003 episodes. And there's no guarantee that you could get the talent back either. Nathan Fillion seems game to return for Captain Mal, but he's got commitments to ABC's mystery series "Castle," which has just been renewed for a fourth year. Other members of the cast have also moved on. Morena Baccarin is the main villain of "V," Adam Baldwin is on year three of "Chuck," and Gina Torres is a regular on USA's upcoming legal drama, "A Legal Mind." Everyone else has been working steadily, most notably Summer Glau, who has had regular or recurring parts on five other television series since "Firefly." And of course, there's Joss Whedon, the creator of "Firefly," who is currently occupied with the "Avengers" movie slated for next year. He got burned with his last television outing, "Dollhouse," and he doesn't seem keen on returning to small screen projects any time soon. What about executive producer and writer Tim Minear? Hard at work on FOX's new cop show, "The Chicago Code," and an upcoming sci-fi series, "R.E.M." Producer Ben Edlund? Still keeping the "Supernatural" fangirls happy.
Would fans really want a "Firefly" that is missing key members of the original cast and creative team? A few die-hards might be willing to settle for some sub-par amateur fan production, thinking it's better than nothing, but I doubt the majority of fans would be satisfied. "Firefly" without its core talent involved just wouldn't be "Firefly." I count myself as a fan of the show and would love to see a resurrection as much as anyone, but at this point I think that ship has sailed. It's no longer 2005, when everyone was holding off on taking other work in the hopes that "Serenity" would do well enough to bring "Firefly" back as a series. Everybody who made "Firefly" a success in the first place has moved on. The best we can really hope for now, after so much time has passed, is for a "Firefly" spinoff in the vein of "Star Trek: The Next Generation." Since interest in the series remains high, and the reputation of "Firefly" has only grown since it went off the air, FOX and Universal may eventually want to revisit the 'Verse, but it's always easier to start over from scratch with a new series than it is to continue an old one, as the "Law & Order," and "Stargate" franchises can attest. Or in a couple of decades, once the nostalgia cycle hits the Millennials, somebody might get the bright idea to reboot "Firefly" as a feature film.
These may not sound like great options, but they beat the alternatives. The thing I've noticed about beloved media franchises is that it is so easy to push them into places they were never meant to go, and that more can often mean less. I've seen so many, many wonderful properties like "Highlander" and "Star Wars," where the creators just didn't know when to quit, where the stories just got more watered-down and disappointing with every new project and spin-off. Another "Firefly" series or a new "Serenity" sequel could mean a great new chapter in the adventures of Captain Mal and his crew. On the other hand, there's also the distinct possibility that the fans could end up with something akin to the "Matrix" sequels or the second "X-Files" movie or the independently produced "Terminator: Salvation," which came about as a direct result of the privately financed Halcyon Company having acquired the rights to the "Terminator" franchise in 2007. Nobody walked away happy from that mess.
"Firefly" may have ended before its time, but then we never had to watch its slow decline or exploitation by other, clumsier creative types. It was never compromised, as so many other franchises have been compromised, and I think that's part of its appeal. Wanting more of a good story is natural, but I think the fans could do well by appreciating what they've got before clamoring for the show's return. Be careful what you wish for, "Firefly" fans," because it can all go so very wrong, so very fast.
And then, well, eager "Firefly" fans on the internet did what all eager media fans on the internet are wont to do - they rose to the challenge and started a fundraising campaign to help Fillion buy the rights to "Firefly" and resurrect the show. This has since been changed into a campaign to buy the show's rights through an independent entity, since obviously poor Nathan Fillion never intended on getting caught up in the middle of this kind of scheme as a result of a simple off-hand comment. I'm sure the fans behind the campaign are all very well-meaning, but their chances of success are infinitesimally small. "Firefly" and its spinoff film "Serenity," are owned by FOX and Universal, very large companies that are still making a bundle off the property and its ancillary merchandise. Even if the fans could raise the money to buy the rights, it's unlikely either company would be in a hurry to sell them.
If, by some miracle, the "Firefly" rights could be acquired, what then? You'd still have to get the money to put the series back into production, which would be another couple million per episode for quality comparable to the 2003 episodes. And there's no guarantee that you could get the talent back either. Nathan Fillion seems game to return for Captain Mal, but he's got commitments to ABC's mystery series "Castle," which has just been renewed for a fourth year. Other members of the cast have also moved on. Morena Baccarin is the main villain of "V," Adam Baldwin is on year three of "Chuck," and Gina Torres is a regular on USA's upcoming legal drama, "A Legal Mind." Everyone else has been working steadily, most notably Summer Glau, who has had regular or recurring parts on five other television series since "Firefly." And of course, there's Joss Whedon, the creator of "Firefly," who is currently occupied with the "Avengers" movie slated for next year. He got burned with his last television outing, "Dollhouse," and he doesn't seem keen on returning to small screen projects any time soon. What about executive producer and writer Tim Minear? Hard at work on FOX's new cop show, "The Chicago Code," and an upcoming sci-fi series, "R.E.M." Producer Ben Edlund? Still keeping the "Supernatural" fangirls happy.
Would fans really want a "Firefly" that is missing key members of the original cast and creative team? A few die-hards might be willing to settle for some sub-par amateur fan production, thinking it's better than nothing, but I doubt the majority of fans would be satisfied. "Firefly" without its core talent involved just wouldn't be "Firefly." I count myself as a fan of the show and would love to see a resurrection as much as anyone, but at this point I think that ship has sailed. It's no longer 2005, when everyone was holding off on taking other work in the hopes that "Serenity" would do well enough to bring "Firefly" back as a series. Everybody who made "Firefly" a success in the first place has moved on. The best we can really hope for now, after so much time has passed, is for a "Firefly" spinoff in the vein of "Star Trek: The Next Generation." Since interest in the series remains high, and the reputation of "Firefly" has only grown since it went off the air, FOX and Universal may eventually want to revisit the 'Verse, but it's always easier to start over from scratch with a new series than it is to continue an old one, as the "Law & Order," and "Stargate" franchises can attest. Or in a couple of decades, once the nostalgia cycle hits the Millennials, somebody might get the bright idea to reboot "Firefly" as a feature film.
These may not sound like great options, but they beat the alternatives. The thing I've noticed about beloved media franchises is that it is so easy to push them into places they were never meant to go, and that more can often mean less. I've seen so many, many wonderful properties like "Highlander" and "Star Wars," where the creators just didn't know when to quit, where the stories just got more watered-down and disappointing with every new project and spin-off. Another "Firefly" series or a new "Serenity" sequel could mean a great new chapter in the adventures of Captain Mal and his crew. On the other hand, there's also the distinct possibility that the fans could end up with something akin to the "Matrix" sequels or the second "X-Files" movie or the independently produced "Terminator: Salvation," which came about as a direct result of the privately financed Halcyon Company having acquired the rights to the "Terminator" franchise in 2007. Nobody walked away happy from that mess.
"Firefly" may have ended before its time, but then we never had to watch its slow decline or exploitation by other, clumsier creative types. It was never compromised, as so many other franchises have been compromised, and I think that's part of its appeal. Wanting more of a good story is natural, but I think the fans could do well by appreciating what they've got before clamoring for the show's return. Be careful what you wish for, "Firefly" fans," because it can all go so very wrong, so very fast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
