I really shouldn't like "It's Kind of a Funny Story" as much as I do. It's a coming-of-age film with the remarkably twee premise of the main character Craig (Keir Gilchrist), a depressed sixteen-year-old with grave concerns about his future, checking himself into a local hospital after contemplating suicide. He's placed in the psychiatric ward, but upon meeting his fellow patients, wants out almost immediately. However, the doctors insist he stay for a minimum of five days for observation, and his parents (Lauren Graham and Jim Gaffigan) agree with them. So in those five days, Craig works through many of his personal issues and learns valuable life lessons from his fellow patients, especially a similarly depressed man named Bobby (Zach Galifianakis), his roommate Muqtada (Bernard White), and the requisite pretty girl, Noelle (Emma Roberts).
"It's Kind of a Funny Story" is a feel-good movie about very troubled, unhappy people. The directors manage this by never letting us see the particularly unpleasant parts of mental illness, preferring to portray all the patients in the psychiatric ward as affably quirky, or at worst, temporarily curmudgeonly. Craig easily makes friends with everybody, gains self-confidence through the simplest therapeutic exercises, and even falls into the unlikely situation of wooing two girls at once, Noelle and his longtime crush Nia (Zoe Kravitz). This greatly sanitized, oversimplified version of life in treatment should be very troubling, and may possibly even ping as borderline exploitative to some. However, I found the story very sweet and funny and hopeful, with an admirably positive outlook on life.
I think what made the movie work for me was the performance of Keir Gilchrist as Craig. He never visibly seems depressed or afflicted, aside from projectile vomiting when he gets nervous. There are no meltdowns, no scenes of silent misery, and none of the other hallmarks of the usual movie mental patient that every edgy young actor seems to have played at one point or another. Gilchrist just comes across as a bright, guileless kid who is going through a hard time. It takes a while to realize how anxious and unhappy he really is. Since the film is told from his very subjective point of view, where the narrative is occasionally interrupted by fantasy sequences, it becomes somewhat more understandable why there would be some selective editing of his psychiatric ward experience.
The supporting cast is great, with several familiar faces in smaller roles. Aasif Mandhvi from "The Daily Show," appears briefly as the admitting doctor in the emergency room, Jeremy Davies from "Lost" shows up as a hospital staff member, and Viola Davis plays a psychiatrist. I like Zach Galifianakis as Bobby, possible his only non-jerk role this year, but he doesn't get as much to do here as he probably should. Neither do many of the others actors, including Lauren Graham and Jim Gaffigan as Craig's parents. The scope of the story is extremely limited, so we don't get to look in on Craig's home life or learn much about the other characters' backgrounds except in the most superficial sense. There's clearly more to Noelle than we see in the film, for instance, but her reasons for being at the hospital are barely acknowledged and seem to evaporate by the end of the story.
The film admits that it's too pat, addressing the issue directly in the ending narration. Problems are solved too easily, and the epiphanies come too fast to be believable. I worry a bit that it may set some unrealistic expectations about the treatment process, since Craig's breakthrough is almost comically easy. But then again it's nice to see a portrayal of people with mental health problems that doesn't romanticize the angst of affliction. Instead, "It's Kind of a Funny Story" looks on the bright side, and seems to be aimed at younger audiences who might benefit from the film's positive messages. I suppose that makes the movie a very, very good after school special, essentially, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I got a real kick out of watching Craig and Bobby practicing flirting techniques together. And watching Craig and Noelle sneak up to the roof in borrowed scrubs. And Craig's fantasy sequence where everyone in the ward is jamming together in a flashy rock band.
So while my rational mind insists that "It's Kind of a Funny Story" is too flawed and too slight a piece of work to take seriously, I still like it. I like everyone in it, I like its attitude, and I like what it's trying to say. It's my favorite comedy of 2010 so far, and here's to more like it.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Saturday, April 16, 2011
ABC Soaps Hit the Suds
Pull out the hankies, soap opera lovers. ABC has canceled the long-running "All My Children" and "One Life To Live," and will replace them with information and lifestyle shows by 2012, cutting the number of American daytime soaps down by a third. "One Life" has been running since 1968 and "All My Children" since 1970. They're only the latest in a string of daytime TV casualties. Last year saw the end of "As the World Turns," which had been airing since the 50s, and the year before that we lost "Guiding Light," which began on radio in 1937. This will leave ABC with a single soap, "General Hospital." With NBC down to "Days of our Lives" and CBS hanging in there with "The Young and the Restless" and "The Bold and the Beautiful," there will fewer daytime soap operas airing in 2012 than at any time since 1955.
The decline of the American soap opera is old news. Ratings have been falling precipitously since the 80s as more women went to work and younger audiences failed to replace older ones. There were several attempts to bridge the generational divide with hipper material, but none got very far. I remember the ruckus around the cancellation of "Another World" in 1998, with its slot going to "Passions," a soap aimed directly at younger viewers that featured a lot of silly supernatural shtick. It lasted until 2008, despite coming in dead last in the ratings for most of its run. Talk shows and reality programs have dominated the daytime landscape for as far back as I can remember, and it's no wonder why the networks prefer them since they're much cheaper and easier to produce.
But why should this matter? Why should we care? Daytime soaps have long been derided for their romance novel plots, lethargic pace, and propensity for cheap tricks. They're practically time-fillers by design, meant to be easily followed while doing mundane housework. Surely from a critical standpoint there's not much here worth saving. I gave soap operas a try when I was in high school, since a few of my girlfriends watched and enjoyed them. I picked up "General Hospital" for a few months, and caught a couple of episodes of its spinoff, "Port Charles." "General Hospital" was generally favored by my friends because it featured mobster characters and occasional fisticuffs. I went along for a while, but the shallow characters and corny dialogue got on my nerves, and I lost interest.
However, I watched for long enough to understand why soaps can be addictive. Despite their reputations for storylines that can go in endless circles without resolution, the individual epiosdes are full of over-the-top drama and emotional turmoil. They're easy to make fun of, but they can also be a lot of fun. And once you become interested in a particular character or relationship, you can follow the lives of these people for years and years. It's no wonder some viewers become so attached to certain shows, because they've invested so much time in some of the stories. And there is a certain art to keeping these long-running daily programs interesting, and coming up with new ways to engage the audience five days a week, for roughly fifty weeks out of the year. The level of quality is actually pretty impressive when you realize the lightning fast production times involved. I learned with "General Hospital" that even though the most exciting events always happened on Fridays, usually with a cliffhanger going into the weekend, you couldn't only watch on Fridays if you wanted to keep up.
But who has the time to devote to daily soap operas anymore? And in the age of Netflix and Hulu and watching whatever you want whenever you want, how could they compare to all the other content out there? Daytime soaps, like Saturday morning cartoons, once flourished because of how television programming was structured and because of certain American cultural norms that simply no longer exist. It's notable that all daytime programming has seen losses in viewership as the notion of appointment television has steadily eroded. With the departure of Oprah Winfrey in a few months, 2011 may mark the end of traditional daytime television as we know it.
I expect that daytime soaps will still linger for a few years to come as talent and audiences consolidate around the remaining shows. In the short term, the cancellations mean a lot of lost jobs and another blow to scripted television. However, viewers may be glad to know that prime time is still full of soap operas, like "Brothers and Sisters" and "Desperate Housewives," but as once-a-week programs they have higher production values, quicker paces, and generally enjoy more creative freedom. But then, they'll never have the kind of audience intimacy or ability to do those day-to-day storylines the way their daytime cousins do.
So in the end, I am going to miss them, even if I was only part of their audience for a very short time. There is a certain comfort in the continuity of the soap opera, the knowledge that I could turn on the TV today, and find the Spencers and the Quartermaines still living their crazy, dramatic lives on "General Hospital" just like they were fifteen years ago. It's always sad to see any kind of storytelling format die out. These shows didn't last for as long as they did by accident.
And the saddest part is, with soaps we won't even have the reruns.
The decline of the American soap opera is old news. Ratings have been falling precipitously since the 80s as more women went to work and younger audiences failed to replace older ones. There were several attempts to bridge the generational divide with hipper material, but none got very far. I remember the ruckus around the cancellation of "Another World" in 1998, with its slot going to "Passions," a soap aimed directly at younger viewers that featured a lot of silly supernatural shtick. It lasted until 2008, despite coming in dead last in the ratings for most of its run. Talk shows and reality programs have dominated the daytime landscape for as far back as I can remember, and it's no wonder why the networks prefer them since they're much cheaper and easier to produce.
But why should this matter? Why should we care? Daytime soaps have long been derided for their romance novel plots, lethargic pace, and propensity for cheap tricks. They're practically time-fillers by design, meant to be easily followed while doing mundane housework. Surely from a critical standpoint there's not much here worth saving. I gave soap operas a try when I was in high school, since a few of my girlfriends watched and enjoyed them. I picked up "General Hospital" for a few months, and caught a couple of episodes of its spinoff, "Port Charles." "General Hospital" was generally favored by my friends because it featured mobster characters and occasional fisticuffs. I went along for a while, but the shallow characters and corny dialogue got on my nerves, and I lost interest.
However, I watched for long enough to understand why soaps can be addictive. Despite their reputations for storylines that can go in endless circles without resolution, the individual epiosdes are full of over-the-top drama and emotional turmoil. They're easy to make fun of, but they can also be a lot of fun. And once you become interested in a particular character or relationship, you can follow the lives of these people for years and years. It's no wonder some viewers become so attached to certain shows, because they've invested so much time in some of the stories. And there is a certain art to keeping these long-running daily programs interesting, and coming up with new ways to engage the audience five days a week, for roughly fifty weeks out of the year. The level of quality is actually pretty impressive when you realize the lightning fast production times involved. I learned with "General Hospital" that even though the most exciting events always happened on Fridays, usually with a cliffhanger going into the weekend, you couldn't only watch on Fridays if you wanted to keep up.
But who has the time to devote to daily soap operas anymore? And in the age of Netflix and Hulu and watching whatever you want whenever you want, how could they compare to all the other content out there? Daytime soaps, like Saturday morning cartoons, once flourished because of how television programming was structured and because of certain American cultural norms that simply no longer exist. It's notable that all daytime programming has seen losses in viewership as the notion of appointment television has steadily eroded. With the departure of Oprah Winfrey in a few months, 2011 may mark the end of traditional daytime television as we know it.
I expect that daytime soaps will still linger for a few years to come as talent and audiences consolidate around the remaining shows. In the short term, the cancellations mean a lot of lost jobs and another blow to scripted television. However, viewers may be glad to know that prime time is still full of soap operas, like "Brothers and Sisters" and "Desperate Housewives," but as once-a-week programs they have higher production values, quicker paces, and generally enjoy more creative freedom. But then, they'll never have the kind of audience intimacy or ability to do those day-to-day storylines the way their daytime cousins do.
So in the end, I am going to miss them, even if I was only part of their audience for a very short time. There is a certain comfort in the continuity of the soap opera, the knowledge that I could turn on the TV today, and find the Spencers and the Quartermaines still living their crazy, dramatic lives on "General Hospital" just like they were fifteen years ago. It's always sad to see any kind of storytelling format die out. These shows didn't last for as long as they did by accident.
And the saddest part is, with soaps we won't even have the reruns.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
An Excuse to Talk About Time Travel Movies!
In the past few days we've gotten several headlines proclaiming that China is banning depictions of time travel movies and television. The truth is a little more complicated. One of China's media monitoring agencies is issuing new guidelines for the portrayal of time travel in Chinese-produced media, in response to the rising popularity of a certain genre of fantasy television program where modern-day people go back in time. Time travel isn't being banned outright, but the guidelines will probably lead to a lot of hand-wringing and self-censorship. The stated reasoning here is that the historical inaccuracy of these programs is a cause for concern, but many aren't buying it. This is a totally idiotic decision, of course, so I'm just going to spend the rest of this post talking about my favorite time travel movies. And no, I haven't seen "Source Code" yet.
"La Jetée" (1962) - In English, "The Pier." This 28-minute French short by experimental filmmaker Chris Marker is one of the best time travel stories ever put to film. It's almost entirely composed of black-and-white still photographs, and tells the story of a man from a post-apocalyptic future who is sent back to the present day, to witness a moment of tragedy that has haunted him since childhood. The images in "La Jetée" are so simple, but incredibly indelible and resonant. It spawned a quasi-remake, Terry Gilliam's "Twelve Monkeys" (1995) with Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt, that's also worth a watch.
"Scrooge" (1970) - This is my favorite live-action version of "A Christmas Carol," the boisterous musical with Albert Finney as Scrooge and Alec Guinness as Marley. (I confess it still comes in second to "Mickey's Christmas Carol" for me.) I can never seem to get through a holiday season without this movie, especially the big finale ending musical sequence. I include it here because the story of Ebenezer Scrooge is the perfect example of time travel as pure fantasy, as a concept that existed in fiction across many different cultures long before it became associated with science-fiction.
"Time After Time" (1979) - This film posits that H.G. Wells (Malcolm McDowell), who wrote "The Time Machine," not only built himself an actual time machine, but Jack the Ripper (David Warner) got his hands on it and traveled to present day San Francisco, forcing Wells to give chase. McDowell is excellent as Wells, who is a fish out of water in the modern world, of course, but resourceful and smart enough to quickly find his way - and then right into the arms of Mary Steenburgen. I always wondered if Steenburgen being cast in the third "Back to the Future" film might have been a nod to the ending of this one.
"Time Bandits" (1981) - A little boy and band of miscreant dwarves have adventures together, while traveling through time and space with the help of a map stolen from the universe's Supreme Being. They meet historical figures like Napoleon (Ian Holm) and Agamemnon (Sean Connery), tangle with a ogre with a back problem, take a cruise on the Titanic, and have a final showdown with Evil, who is naturally played by David Warner. "Time Bandits" remains one of Terry Gilliam's best films, a gleeful romp through history and mythology, jam-packed full of "Monty Python" humor with some wickedly dark touches.
The "Back to the Future" Trilogy (1985-1990) - Surely you didn't think we were going to get through this list without these movies, did you? Robert Zemeckis' time travel trilogy has aged wonderfully, even though we're fast approaching the date when it will be definitely proven that we will not have hoverboards and Mr. Fusions by 2015. These are such perfect popcorn pictures, full of energetic comedy and action, with two immortal heroes of the 80s at the forefront - Marty McFly and Doc Brown. In the same vein, though not in the same league, are the "Bill and Ted" movies, which are silly and cheesy and still totally excellent, dudes.
"Primer" (2004) - An indie horror film about a pair of young Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who accidentally invent a time machine and proceed to misuse it. "Primer" was shot on a shoestring budget and has almost no special effects, but generates plenty of tension with a great script and performances. Full of paradoxes and multiple timelines to untangle, some viewers have worked out incredibly elaborate explanations for what we see onscreen. Or you can just sit back and enjoy the escalating madness like I did. Covering similar ground is the Spanish language "Los Cronocrimenes" ("Timecrimes") from 2007, another intense little cautionary tale.
"The Girl Who Leapt Through Time" (2006) - Mamoru Hosoda's anime is a charming, sweet fantasy about a teenage girl named Makoto who discovers she has the ability to make short jaunts into her past. She has a lot of fun with her power at first, but then it starts causing no small amount of trouble. The movie is distinctive for its sunny tone and easygoing atmosphere, which features a lot of humor and sentiment. There are some pretty eye-catching visuals too, especially where time slows down or speeds up.
--
"La Jetée" (1962) - In English, "The Pier." This 28-minute French short by experimental filmmaker Chris Marker is one of the best time travel stories ever put to film. It's almost entirely composed of black-and-white still photographs, and tells the story of a man from a post-apocalyptic future who is sent back to the present day, to witness a moment of tragedy that has haunted him since childhood. The images in "La Jetée" are so simple, but incredibly indelible and resonant. It spawned a quasi-remake, Terry Gilliam's "Twelve Monkeys" (1995) with Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt, that's also worth a watch.
"Scrooge" (1970) - This is my favorite live-action version of "A Christmas Carol," the boisterous musical with Albert Finney as Scrooge and Alec Guinness as Marley. (I confess it still comes in second to "Mickey's Christmas Carol" for me.) I can never seem to get through a holiday season without this movie, especially the big finale ending musical sequence. I include it here because the story of Ebenezer Scrooge is the perfect example of time travel as pure fantasy, as a concept that existed in fiction across many different cultures long before it became associated with science-fiction.
"Time After Time" (1979) - This film posits that H.G. Wells (Malcolm McDowell), who wrote "The Time Machine," not only built himself an actual time machine, but Jack the Ripper (David Warner) got his hands on it and traveled to present day San Francisco, forcing Wells to give chase. McDowell is excellent as Wells, who is a fish out of water in the modern world, of course, but resourceful and smart enough to quickly find his way - and then right into the arms of Mary Steenburgen. I always wondered if Steenburgen being cast in the third "Back to the Future" film might have been a nod to the ending of this one.
"Time Bandits" (1981) - A little boy and band of miscreant dwarves have adventures together, while traveling through time and space with the help of a map stolen from the universe's Supreme Being. They meet historical figures like Napoleon (Ian Holm) and Agamemnon (Sean Connery), tangle with a ogre with a back problem, take a cruise on the Titanic, and have a final showdown with Evil, who is naturally played by David Warner. "Time Bandits" remains one of Terry Gilliam's best films, a gleeful romp through history and mythology, jam-packed full of "Monty Python" humor with some wickedly dark touches.
The "Back to the Future" Trilogy (1985-1990) - Surely you didn't think we were going to get through this list without these movies, did you? Robert Zemeckis' time travel trilogy has aged wonderfully, even though we're fast approaching the date when it will be definitely proven that we will not have hoverboards and Mr. Fusions by 2015. These are such perfect popcorn pictures, full of energetic comedy and action, with two immortal heroes of the 80s at the forefront - Marty McFly and Doc Brown. In the same vein, though not in the same league, are the "Bill and Ted" movies, which are silly and cheesy and still totally excellent, dudes.
"Primer" (2004) - An indie horror film about a pair of young Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who accidentally invent a time machine and proceed to misuse it. "Primer" was shot on a shoestring budget and has almost no special effects, but generates plenty of tension with a great script and performances. Full of paradoxes and multiple timelines to untangle, some viewers have worked out incredibly elaborate explanations for what we see onscreen. Or you can just sit back and enjoy the escalating madness like I did. Covering similar ground is the Spanish language "Los Cronocrimenes" ("Timecrimes") from 2007, another intense little cautionary tale.
"The Girl Who Leapt Through Time" (2006) - Mamoru Hosoda's anime is a charming, sweet fantasy about a teenage girl named Makoto who discovers she has the ability to make short jaunts into her past. She has a lot of fun with her power at first, but then it starts causing no small amount of trouble. The movie is distinctive for its sunny tone and easygoing atmosphere, which features a lot of humor and sentiment. There are some pretty eye-catching visuals too, especially where time slows down or speeds up.
--
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
The "Smothered" Pilot
I happened upon the pilot for the new ABC sitcom "Smothered" recently. Nobody asked me to sign anything or to refrain from talking about it, so I thought I'd put down some thoughts. The short version is, there are a lot of talented people in the cast, but this is one of those shows where I am reminded why I no longer watch many network sitcoms.
"Smothered" is about two pairs of smothering grandparents competing for the affections of their baby granddaughter. The young couple caught between them, Gillian (Brooke D'Orsay) and Zack (Kyle Howard), try their best to mediate and be fair about access, but they're no match for the new grandmothers, who are willing to go to any lengths to spend more time with baby Peyton when everyone convenes for her first birthday party. The older couples are polar opposites of course, conforming to the usual sitcom types. Zack's parents Fran (Marcia Gay Harden) and Alan (Adam Arkin) are Jewish New Yorkers, who do things like vacation in Europe and eat gazpacho soup. Gillian's parents Patty (Julie White) and Skip (John C. McGinley) are from Tennessee and do things like quilt and show affection through manual labor. The final member of the cast is Kate Micucci, playing Gillian's younger sister Susie, who also lives nearby, but is totally ignored by her parents in favor of the baby. She's essentially the sad-sack Robert Barone character from the early seasons of "Everybody Loves Raymond," but cuter.
This is not the only blatant attempt to try to summon the mojo of "Raymond." All the action in the "Smothered" pilot is driven by Fran and Patty, who seem determined to be nosier, needier, more stubborn, and more manipulative than Marie Barone at her worst. Their husbands barely register, happy to hang back and deliver wry one-liners once in a while to remind us they're still there. All I could think throughout the episode was that there must be something terribly wrong with both grandmothers, some awful void in their lives or unspoken traumas that would drive them to act like this. It was painful to see actors like Marcia Gay Harden, Adam Arkin, and John C. McGinley playing such empty, two-dimensional characters. Julie White came off the best, since Patty at least offers up some excuses for her behavior, but if she went any broader she'd be the horizon line. And while I've liked Marcia Gay Harden in her other roles, her Fran is such an affected snob, she's downright unlikeable.
I'd say that the biggest problem is that D'Orsay and Howard, playing the young couple, get totally steamrollered by the older actors, and come off very generic and dull. All I really got was that Zack was a bit of a snarker, Gillian was probably much smarter than the lousy dialogue coming out of her mouth, and both of them couldn't find the backbone to stand up to their parents. Like too many sitcom creatures, it was all high energy and good looks with hardly a shred of personality to go with it. "Smothered" reminds me more of "Dharma and Greg" than "Everybody Loves Raymond," with the opposing sets of in-laws, but "Dharma" worked because of that wonderful chemistry between Jenna Elfman and Thomas Gibson that got the audience to root for them. Zack and Gillian simply don't cut it. My favorite part of the pilot wound up being Kate Micucci as the sister. She made for a good running joke, but it's one that's been done so many times before, I wonder if it can really be sustained for multiple episodes.
I don't think the premise of "Smothered" is unworkable, but the execution was so ham-handed and overwrought, I was cringing where I was probably meant to be laughing. There were so many tired old cliches about Middle Americans and about New Yorkers, none of which rang even vaguely true. Every situation was overblown, overplayed, and made me like the characters less and less as the episode wore on. And worst of all, by choosing "Everybody Loves Raymond" as their template, "Smothered" felt like a sitcom at least ten years out of date. Is ABC really going to put this thing on after "Modern Family" or "Cougar Town"? Older audiences would probably appreciate the cast, but not the constant histrionics. I expect younger audiences would have the same reaction I did, and flee in terror.
I laughed at "Smothered" exactly twice, both times when Adam Arkin delivered mild one-liners that suggested he was as miserable existing within the confines of the pilot as I was watching it. I'd keep him, keep Micucci, and chuck everything else.
"Smothered" is about two pairs of smothering grandparents competing for the affections of their baby granddaughter. The young couple caught between them, Gillian (Brooke D'Orsay) and Zack (Kyle Howard), try their best to mediate and be fair about access, but they're no match for the new grandmothers, who are willing to go to any lengths to spend more time with baby Peyton when everyone convenes for her first birthday party. The older couples are polar opposites of course, conforming to the usual sitcom types. Zack's parents Fran (Marcia Gay Harden) and Alan (Adam Arkin) are Jewish New Yorkers, who do things like vacation in Europe and eat gazpacho soup. Gillian's parents Patty (Julie White) and Skip (John C. McGinley) are from Tennessee and do things like quilt and show affection through manual labor. The final member of the cast is Kate Micucci, playing Gillian's younger sister Susie, who also lives nearby, but is totally ignored by her parents in favor of the baby. She's essentially the sad-sack Robert Barone character from the early seasons of "Everybody Loves Raymond," but cuter.
This is not the only blatant attempt to try to summon the mojo of "Raymond." All the action in the "Smothered" pilot is driven by Fran and Patty, who seem determined to be nosier, needier, more stubborn, and more manipulative than Marie Barone at her worst. Their husbands barely register, happy to hang back and deliver wry one-liners once in a while to remind us they're still there. All I could think throughout the episode was that there must be something terribly wrong with both grandmothers, some awful void in their lives or unspoken traumas that would drive them to act like this. It was painful to see actors like Marcia Gay Harden, Adam Arkin, and John C. McGinley playing such empty, two-dimensional characters. Julie White came off the best, since Patty at least offers up some excuses for her behavior, but if she went any broader she'd be the horizon line. And while I've liked Marcia Gay Harden in her other roles, her Fran is such an affected snob, she's downright unlikeable.
I'd say that the biggest problem is that D'Orsay and Howard, playing the young couple, get totally steamrollered by the older actors, and come off very generic and dull. All I really got was that Zack was a bit of a snarker, Gillian was probably much smarter than the lousy dialogue coming out of her mouth, and both of them couldn't find the backbone to stand up to their parents. Like too many sitcom creatures, it was all high energy and good looks with hardly a shred of personality to go with it. "Smothered" reminds me more of "Dharma and Greg" than "Everybody Loves Raymond," with the opposing sets of in-laws, but "Dharma" worked because of that wonderful chemistry between Jenna Elfman and Thomas Gibson that got the audience to root for them. Zack and Gillian simply don't cut it. My favorite part of the pilot wound up being Kate Micucci as the sister. She made for a good running joke, but it's one that's been done so many times before, I wonder if it can really be sustained for multiple episodes.
I don't think the premise of "Smothered" is unworkable, but the execution was so ham-handed and overwrought, I was cringing where I was probably meant to be laughing. There were so many tired old cliches about Middle Americans and about New Yorkers, none of which rang even vaguely true. Every situation was overblown, overplayed, and made me like the characters less and less as the episode wore on. And worst of all, by choosing "Everybody Loves Raymond" as their template, "Smothered" felt like a sitcom at least ten years out of date. Is ABC really going to put this thing on after "Modern Family" or "Cougar Town"? Older audiences would probably appreciate the cast, but not the constant histrionics. I expect younger audiences would have the same reaction I did, and flee in terror.
I laughed at "Smothered" exactly twice, both times when Adam Arkin delivered mild one-liners that suggested he was as miserable existing within the confines of the pilot as I was watching it. I'd keep him, keep Micucci, and chuck everything else.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Over Halfway Through "Farscape"
It's only been a couple of weeks since my last "Farscape" post, but I've just mainlined about half a season's worth of episodes and I'm currently in the middle of Season Three. There's a lot to talk about that I don't want to put off. Some spoilers are ahead, but I'll try not to get too specific about the big events.
Over the last season, "Farscape" has become a full-fledged character drama, built on budding relationships, interpersonal tensions, family dynamics, and a whole lot of pulse weapon battles. It's still primarily an action show, full of Jim Henson Creature Shop aliens, but the nature of the adventure has changed The appearance of Scorpius (Wayne Pygram) as the series' major antagonist seems to have been the catalyst for the shift from mostly standalone episodes in the first season to a semi-continuous storyline. Multi-parters abound, with no guarantee that anything will be resolved in the final installments, and every season so far has ended with a cliffhanger. I've never been so happy to have access to an entire series all at once, because I can imagine that some of the waits between seasons must have been aggravating as hell.
There are now very apparent character arcs and issues constantly in play. John Crichton (Ben Browder) is still trying to get home to Earth and is slowly turning up the heat on his romance with Aeryn Sun (Claudia Black), but his most pressing problem is Scorpius. Thanks to a little gift from their first encounter, Scorpius has gotten awfully close to taking over Crichton's mind and driving him insane. D'Argo (Anthony Simcoe) has also had his share of drama, thanks to various relationship troubles and a major betrayal at the beginning of the third season. It looks like Chiana (Gigi Edgley) is being set up for bigger conflicts down the road and Crais (Lani Tupu) must be up to something. Finally, to say anything of Zhaan (Virginia Hey) would be a spoiler.
"Farscape" has really benefited from exploring character-based dramatic storylines. While the show does deliver up many episodes devoted to exploring various science-fiction concepts like parallel universes and time-travel, its primary concern has become the ongoing development of its characters. The latest episodes, particularly the multi-parters, have gotten very compelling with everyone's problems compounding on each other. Resolving one character's crisis may create bad consequences for another, or lead into a new arc for someone else. I love this kind of science fiction when the creators can really commit to it. Shows that focus on big ideas and novel concepts tend to have overly idealized or very flat heroes. Don't get me wrong. I adore Picard and Data from "Star Trek: TNG," but it's hard to imagine them bringing their personal baggage into their fights, or being able to grow and change and get involved with each other's lives the way the crew of the Moya do.
Right now "Farscape" has much more in common with "Firefly" and the original "Star Wars" trilogy, which both featured imperfect, everyman heroes and more rough-and-tumble universes. What distinguishes "Farscape," though, is that it likes actively subverting our expectations about science fiction and tells a much broader range of stories. It has silly comedy episodes, weird experimental episodes, and some that go to very dark and twisted places. And there's not only romance, but plenty of sexual activity going on too, much of it inter-species. Even the villains see their share of action. "Farscape" has also had much more time to build up its storylines and flesh out its cast of oddball characters. It makes for a nice change of pace from the more traditional starship shows, which almost always feature a stifling military culture and the heroes upholding terribly lofty ideals.
This isn't to say that "Farscape" couldn't stand some improvement. I don't see too many production problems anymore, but the show's writing is still very uneven. There have also been two new additions to the crew of the Moya. One is Stark (Paul Goddard), a former slave who first appeared at the end of Season One, and popped up again halfway through Season Two. He's another victim of Scorpius's who is not very mentally sound, and the writing of the character has been very inconsistent. In one episode he's all sweetness and light and nobody questions his intentions, and in another D'Argo and John are both actively hostile towards him for no apparent reason. Sometimes he's lucid and sometimes he's a gibbering, paranoid wreck. The other newcomer is Jool (Tammy McIntosh), who I haven't seen enough of to say much about yet.
And while I like that the writers have embraced the personal stories and aren't afraid of taking risks and changing the status quo from episode to episode, some of the resolutions have just been messy. A fake-out with one character's apparent death made the subsequent departure of one of the other leads harder to believe. And are we really supposed to buy that D'Argo's storyline with his son just ends the way it does? And that Crichton's mental breakdown doesn't have more consequences? And surely there has to be a limit on the number of times Moya can be dying of some horrible affliction on other. Maybe this is just setting up future stories, but I've done some checking and it doesn't look like some of these loose ends will ever be wrapped up.
So while "Farscape" has hit some very strong highs, it's still got its share of lows. But I have to say I'm really enjoying the good parts, especially the ongoing struggle between Crichton and Scorpius. I initially thought Crichton was a bit of a self-centered jerk, but he's grown on me as the universe has steadily turned against him and put him in some dark and unhappy places. The pop-culture references still stick out, but it's become clear that they're a coping mechanism. And I really appreciate the sillier side of his personality, which has fueled some of the show's great comedic episodes. It's become something of a running joke that every time Crichton wakes up on Earth, it means another alien is screwing around with his brains, leading to all kinds of bizarre scenarios. I'm looking forward to the next time this happens.
Sigh. Alas, I am already more than halfway through the series. Why is it that the good ones go so quick?
Over the last season, "Farscape" has become a full-fledged character drama, built on budding relationships, interpersonal tensions, family dynamics, and a whole lot of pulse weapon battles. It's still primarily an action show, full of Jim Henson Creature Shop aliens, but the nature of the adventure has changed The appearance of Scorpius (Wayne Pygram) as the series' major antagonist seems to have been the catalyst for the shift from mostly standalone episodes in the first season to a semi-continuous storyline. Multi-parters abound, with no guarantee that anything will be resolved in the final installments, and every season so far has ended with a cliffhanger. I've never been so happy to have access to an entire series all at once, because I can imagine that some of the waits between seasons must have been aggravating as hell.
There are now very apparent character arcs and issues constantly in play. John Crichton (Ben Browder) is still trying to get home to Earth and is slowly turning up the heat on his romance with Aeryn Sun (Claudia Black), but his most pressing problem is Scorpius. Thanks to a little gift from their first encounter, Scorpius has gotten awfully close to taking over Crichton's mind and driving him insane. D'Argo (Anthony Simcoe) has also had his share of drama, thanks to various relationship troubles and a major betrayal at the beginning of the third season. It looks like Chiana (Gigi Edgley) is being set up for bigger conflicts down the road and Crais (Lani Tupu) must be up to something. Finally, to say anything of Zhaan (Virginia Hey) would be a spoiler.
"Farscape" has really benefited from exploring character-based dramatic storylines. While the show does deliver up many episodes devoted to exploring various science-fiction concepts like parallel universes and time-travel, its primary concern has become the ongoing development of its characters. The latest episodes, particularly the multi-parters, have gotten very compelling with everyone's problems compounding on each other. Resolving one character's crisis may create bad consequences for another, or lead into a new arc for someone else. I love this kind of science fiction when the creators can really commit to it. Shows that focus on big ideas and novel concepts tend to have overly idealized or very flat heroes. Don't get me wrong. I adore Picard and Data from "Star Trek: TNG," but it's hard to imagine them bringing their personal baggage into their fights, or being able to grow and change and get involved with each other's lives the way the crew of the Moya do.
Right now "Farscape" has much more in common with "Firefly" and the original "Star Wars" trilogy, which both featured imperfect, everyman heroes and more rough-and-tumble universes. What distinguishes "Farscape," though, is that it likes actively subverting our expectations about science fiction and tells a much broader range of stories. It has silly comedy episodes, weird experimental episodes, and some that go to very dark and twisted places. And there's not only romance, but plenty of sexual activity going on too, much of it inter-species. Even the villains see their share of action. "Farscape" has also had much more time to build up its storylines and flesh out its cast of oddball characters. It makes for a nice change of pace from the more traditional starship shows, which almost always feature a stifling military culture and the heroes upholding terribly lofty ideals.
This isn't to say that "Farscape" couldn't stand some improvement. I don't see too many production problems anymore, but the show's writing is still very uneven. There have also been two new additions to the crew of the Moya. One is Stark (Paul Goddard), a former slave who first appeared at the end of Season One, and popped up again halfway through Season Two. He's another victim of Scorpius's who is not very mentally sound, and the writing of the character has been very inconsistent. In one episode he's all sweetness and light and nobody questions his intentions, and in another D'Argo and John are both actively hostile towards him for no apparent reason. Sometimes he's lucid and sometimes he's a gibbering, paranoid wreck. The other newcomer is Jool (Tammy McIntosh), who I haven't seen enough of to say much about yet.
And while I like that the writers have embraced the personal stories and aren't afraid of taking risks and changing the status quo from episode to episode, some of the resolutions have just been messy. A fake-out with one character's apparent death made the subsequent departure of one of the other leads harder to believe. And are we really supposed to buy that D'Argo's storyline with his son just ends the way it does? And that Crichton's mental breakdown doesn't have more consequences? And surely there has to be a limit on the number of times Moya can be dying of some horrible affliction on other. Maybe this is just setting up future stories, but I've done some checking and it doesn't look like some of these loose ends will ever be wrapped up.
So while "Farscape" has hit some very strong highs, it's still got its share of lows. But I have to say I'm really enjoying the good parts, especially the ongoing struggle between Crichton and Scorpius. I initially thought Crichton was a bit of a self-centered jerk, but he's grown on me as the universe has steadily turned against him and put him in some dark and unhappy places. The pop-culture references still stick out, but it's become clear that they're a coping mechanism. And I really appreciate the sillier side of his personality, which has fueled some of the show's great comedic episodes. It's become something of a running joke that every time Crichton wakes up on Earth, it means another alien is screwing around with his brains, leading to all kinds of bizarre scenarios. I'm looking forward to the next time this happens.
Sigh. Alas, I am already more than halfway through the series. Why is it that the good ones go so quick?
Monday, April 11, 2011
Who is "Hanna"?
It would be easy to draw parallels between "Hanna" and the recently released "Sucker Punch." Both stories feature images of young girls committing acts of violence upon their foes. But while "Sucker Punch" was heavily influenced by video games and anime, "Hanna" echoes older, more primal source material. It fits in nicely with our recent spate of fairy-tale films, though I suspect "Hanna" hews closer to the actual form and function of a fairy-tale than most of the others. The story, boiled down to its essentials, is pure Brothers Grimm. An adolescent girl named Hanna (Saoirse Ronan), has been raised by her father Eric (Eric Bana), in the frozen wilderness of the Arctic. One day, when she's old enough and strong enough, she leaves their forest sanctuary and sets out on a mission to kill the wicked witch, a CIA agent named Marissa Wiegler (Cate Blanchett). Wiegler was responsible for the death of Hanna's mother, and Eric warns that she will do everything in her power to kill Hanna as well, unless Hanna kills her first.
"Hanna" has been marketed as an action film about a child assassin, and action fiends should be happy to find plenty of fights and chases here. Hanna has been prepared all her life for the mission to kill Wiegler, and has been trained in all forms of combat. Killing doesn't faze her, as she demonstrates in the opening scene by bringing down a deer several times her size. But though Hanna is very proficient at dispatching any poor goon who steps her path with ruthless efficiency, she's not ready for the larger world. Hanna can speak several different languages and parrot statistics and dictionary definitions that may be necessary for her mission, but she has to learn to adapt to and appreciate civilization as she goes. This journey of self-discovery forms the backbone of the story, so much of the film is taken up by Hanna's travels through Morocco and Spain, and her first encounters with little things like electricity, music, and boys. She also becomes attached to a nice British family on holiday, particularly their teenage daughter Sophie (Jessica Barden). But will becoming a real girl end up jeopardizing Hanna's mission and endangering her new friends?
Until now director Joe Wright has been known for much more sedate material, like "Pride and Prejudice" and "Atonement." Here, he shows he can shoot an action scene with the best of them, playing with a variety of techniques. Keep an eye out for a fight sequence with Eric Bana that takes place entirely in a single shot. And there's a nighttime sequence where every sound we hear is slowly revealed to be digetic - coming from within the scene. I also liked Hanna's flashy escape from a government holding facility, which plays a bit like a techno music video. The stylization is gratuitous, perhaps, but it keeps up the energy and sufficiently dazzles the eye without resorting to the use of any noticeable CGI. Rather, the most climactic scenes in "Hanna" take place in unglamorous settings rife with decay and thematic significance - a children's playground full of rusting equipment, and an old amusement park in serious disrepair. The whole film is full of these wonderful, stripped-down visuals, but often used in a way that signals that we're still very much inside a fantasy story.
The performances are good all around, but several are seriously underwritten. Saoirse Ronan again proves that she's one of the best young actresses we've got, especially in those moments where she slowly adjusts her behavior to adapt to different social situations, or memorably fails to. The sight of her fighting her way through multiple enemies, often much larger than she, should be ridiculous but somehow isn't. Ronan credibly sells the image and idea of Hanna as an amoral child soldier, but more importantly one with a great desire to be something more. The rest of the characters are fairly flat, though Eric Bana exhibits some signs of depth as Hanna's father and the vacationing family pings as more or less genuine. I was looking forward to Cate Blanchett's performance as the villain of the piece, but though Wiegler is a fun, fearsome caricature of an evil career bitch, she gets too few juicy scenes to herself and is not portrayed despicably enough to really make us root for her demise.
But this is Hanna's story and not Marissa Wiegler's. Perhaps it makes sense that Wiegler is portrayed as a fairy-tale villain, since this is how Hanna sees her. The script follows suit, not as concerned with making sure the events of the assassination story always make sense, as with capturing the smaller character moments and charting Hanna's personal growth. In one of the boldest exposition cheats I've ever seen, Hanna uncovers reams of backstory in a two-minute montage sequence involving a computer. However, there are some deft little instances of humor and well-observed character interactions that help to make up for it.
Make no mistake that "Hanna" is a pure genre picture, and has all the usual gratuitous violence and indulgent logic leaps that come with them, but it does a lot of interesting things with the formula, and it's as entertaining as hell. For those concerned, there is no sexualization of Hanna or really much sexual behavior to speak of, except in the most innocent sense, so it avoids any skeevy exploitation overtones. There are a few grisly moments, however, that make me question the film's PG-13 rating. This begs the question whether "Hanna" is appropriate for young viewers. I'm not sure. Hanna is no role model, but I found her far more engaging and sympathetic than Hit Girl or any of the "Sucker Punch" beauties. And I found the decision she reaches at the end of the film a far more valuable victory.
But I leave that to you to discover for yourself.
"Hanna" has been marketed as an action film about a child assassin, and action fiends should be happy to find plenty of fights and chases here. Hanna has been prepared all her life for the mission to kill Wiegler, and has been trained in all forms of combat. Killing doesn't faze her, as she demonstrates in the opening scene by bringing down a deer several times her size. But though Hanna is very proficient at dispatching any poor goon who steps her path with ruthless efficiency, she's not ready for the larger world. Hanna can speak several different languages and parrot statistics and dictionary definitions that may be necessary for her mission, but she has to learn to adapt to and appreciate civilization as she goes. This journey of self-discovery forms the backbone of the story, so much of the film is taken up by Hanna's travels through Morocco and Spain, and her first encounters with little things like electricity, music, and boys. She also becomes attached to a nice British family on holiday, particularly their teenage daughter Sophie (Jessica Barden). But will becoming a real girl end up jeopardizing Hanna's mission and endangering her new friends?
Until now director Joe Wright has been known for much more sedate material, like "Pride and Prejudice" and "Atonement." Here, he shows he can shoot an action scene with the best of them, playing with a variety of techniques. Keep an eye out for a fight sequence with Eric Bana that takes place entirely in a single shot. And there's a nighttime sequence where every sound we hear is slowly revealed to be digetic - coming from within the scene. I also liked Hanna's flashy escape from a government holding facility, which plays a bit like a techno music video. The stylization is gratuitous, perhaps, but it keeps up the energy and sufficiently dazzles the eye without resorting to the use of any noticeable CGI. Rather, the most climactic scenes in "Hanna" take place in unglamorous settings rife with decay and thematic significance - a children's playground full of rusting equipment, and an old amusement park in serious disrepair. The whole film is full of these wonderful, stripped-down visuals, but often used in a way that signals that we're still very much inside a fantasy story.
The performances are good all around, but several are seriously underwritten. Saoirse Ronan again proves that she's one of the best young actresses we've got, especially in those moments where she slowly adjusts her behavior to adapt to different social situations, or memorably fails to. The sight of her fighting her way through multiple enemies, often much larger than she, should be ridiculous but somehow isn't. Ronan credibly sells the image and idea of Hanna as an amoral child soldier, but more importantly one with a great desire to be something more. The rest of the characters are fairly flat, though Eric Bana exhibits some signs of depth as Hanna's father and the vacationing family pings as more or less genuine. I was looking forward to Cate Blanchett's performance as the villain of the piece, but though Wiegler is a fun, fearsome caricature of an evil career bitch, she gets too few juicy scenes to herself and is not portrayed despicably enough to really make us root for her demise.
But this is Hanna's story and not Marissa Wiegler's. Perhaps it makes sense that Wiegler is portrayed as a fairy-tale villain, since this is how Hanna sees her. The script follows suit, not as concerned with making sure the events of the assassination story always make sense, as with capturing the smaller character moments and charting Hanna's personal growth. In one of the boldest exposition cheats I've ever seen, Hanna uncovers reams of backstory in a two-minute montage sequence involving a computer. However, there are some deft little instances of humor and well-observed character interactions that help to make up for it.
Make no mistake that "Hanna" is a pure genre picture, and has all the usual gratuitous violence and indulgent logic leaps that come with them, but it does a lot of interesting things with the formula, and it's as entertaining as hell. For those concerned, there is no sexualization of Hanna or really much sexual behavior to speak of, except in the most innocent sense, so it avoids any skeevy exploitation overtones. There are a few grisly moments, however, that make me question the film's PG-13 rating. This begs the question whether "Hanna" is appropriate for young viewers. I'm not sure. Hanna is no role model, but I found her far more engaging and sympathetic than Hit Girl or any of the "Sucker Punch" beauties. And I found the decision she reaches at the end of the film a far more valuable victory.
But I leave that to you to discover for yourself.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
"Burlesque" is Such a Guilty Pleasure
Let's get one thing out of the way first. "Burlesque" is a bad film. It's a corny old story about a girl from a small town in Iowa who comes to Los Angeles in search of her dreams. In this case, the dream is becoming a burlesque performer, after the girl wanders into a club and becomes enamored with what she sees on stage. Of course, after overcoming various obstacles and digressions, the girl becomes a star, chooses the poor songwriter over the real estate tycoon, and manages to save the club from financial ruin at the very last minute. You've seen this all before, and done better. But that said, I haven't had more fun watching a movie in a long while.
Christina Aguilera plays Ali, the girl from Iowa. Aguilera tries, but she's not much of an actress, and her scenes with her primary love interest Jack (Cam Gigandet), are hokey and endless. But when you put Christina Aguilera on a stage, with a microphone, she does what she does best, which is sing her guts out and make us love her for it. The best sequences in "Burlesque" are the actual burlesque performances, full of flash and dazzle and peekaboo sexiness in just the right amounts. They're campy, but so much more vibrant and engaging than the inert posing on display in "Nine" or the chaotic visual overload of "Moulin Rouge." It's made clear from the start that the performers in "Burlesque" are enjoying themselves and want to be on stage, and that makes all the difference.
This is a fantasy, of course. The realities of this kind of lifestyle are not explored in any detail, and the usual seedy underbelly beneath the glitz and glamor is noticeably missing. Instead, the burlesque club exists in a kind of idealized world free of sexual predation and moral judgments. The girl who has to leave the show due to an unplanned pregnancy goes off to be happily married. Even the villain of the piece, a businessman named Marcus (Eric Dane) who is trying to buy the club, never engages in any remotely threatening behavior. The club itself is owned and run by Tess, a world-weary but still fabulous woman of mature years, played by Cher. It has to be said that Cher often looks artificially preserved to the point where we can practically see the formaldehyde fumes, but she gamely does her best to serve as the mentor figure and den mother to her girls, and even hauls herself up on stage for two numbers to remind us that her pipes are still in good working order.
There's so much talent in this movie, that as bad as the material is, it can't seem to help but be entertaining. For every dull scene of Aguilera flirting stiffly with Gigandet, there she is in a Swarovski crystal bustier two minutes later, setting the stage on fire. For every contrived moment where Cher has to worry over the future of the club, we get a few lines of delicious banter between her and Stanley Tucci, playing her long-suffering and very gay club manager. I did a double take when I realized that the ticket taker was Alan Cumming and the stage manager was Glynn Turman. They're both sorely underused, along with Kristen Bell, who plays Aguilera's comically hostile rival at the club. I haven't made up my mind about Cam Gigandet yet, who undeniably has some charisma, but suffers for being in a role that has all the depth of floral wallpaper.
I think "Burlesque" would have been more entertaining if it consisted only of the burlesque sequences, which are lavishly produced and feature a mix of old standbys like "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend" and original songs for a consistently rousing soundtrack. I'm astonished as to how not a single song from the film got any recognition from the Oscars, after the miserable showing the Best Song category had this year. They snubbed Cher and Christina Aguilera performances in favor of Gwyneth Paltrow? Really? But then, it may have been difficult for Academy members to overlook the fact that "Burlesque" is really just a vehicle for Christina Aguilera to play movie star, and the story is so thin that it would have been better suited to a concept album and a corresponding series of music videos. Come to think of it, that's practically what this is.
Still, there's no denying the entertainment value of "Burlesque" for a certain audience, which includes me. I'm a fan of both Cher and Aguilera, so I relished the chance to see them work together. And for them, I was willing to put up with more nonsense than I suspect many other viewers would. But how could I resist? The movie is so happy and vulgar and toothsome and wholesome and idealistic all at the same time. It doesn't make a lick of sense, and how could it? But I suppose that's part of the fantasy, and we all need a silly feel-good movie like "Burlesque" every now and then.
Christina Aguilera plays Ali, the girl from Iowa. Aguilera tries, but she's not much of an actress, and her scenes with her primary love interest Jack (Cam Gigandet), are hokey and endless. But when you put Christina Aguilera on a stage, with a microphone, she does what she does best, which is sing her guts out and make us love her for it. The best sequences in "Burlesque" are the actual burlesque performances, full of flash and dazzle and peekaboo sexiness in just the right amounts. They're campy, but so much more vibrant and engaging than the inert posing on display in "Nine" or the chaotic visual overload of "Moulin Rouge." It's made clear from the start that the performers in "Burlesque" are enjoying themselves and want to be on stage, and that makes all the difference.
This is a fantasy, of course. The realities of this kind of lifestyle are not explored in any detail, and the usual seedy underbelly beneath the glitz and glamor is noticeably missing. Instead, the burlesque club exists in a kind of idealized world free of sexual predation and moral judgments. The girl who has to leave the show due to an unplanned pregnancy goes off to be happily married. Even the villain of the piece, a businessman named Marcus (Eric Dane) who is trying to buy the club, never engages in any remotely threatening behavior. The club itself is owned and run by Tess, a world-weary but still fabulous woman of mature years, played by Cher. It has to be said that Cher often looks artificially preserved to the point where we can practically see the formaldehyde fumes, but she gamely does her best to serve as the mentor figure and den mother to her girls, and even hauls herself up on stage for two numbers to remind us that her pipes are still in good working order.
There's so much talent in this movie, that as bad as the material is, it can't seem to help but be entertaining. For every dull scene of Aguilera flirting stiffly with Gigandet, there she is in a Swarovski crystal bustier two minutes later, setting the stage on fire. For every contrived moment where Cher has to worry over the future of the club, we get a few lines of delicious banter between her and Stanley Tucci, playing her long-suffering and very gay club manager. I did a double take when I realized that the ticket taker was Alan Cumming and the stage manager was Glynn Turman. They're both sorely underused, along with Kristen Bell, who plays Aguilera's comically hostile rival at the club. I haven't made up my mind about Cam Gigandet yet, who undeniably has some charisma, but suffers for being in a role that has all the depth of floral wallpaper.
I think "Burlesque" would have been more entertaining if it consisted only of the burlesque sequences, which are lavishly produced and feature a mix of old standbys like "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend" and original songs for a consistently rousing soundtrack. I'm astonished as to how not a single song from the film got any recognition from the Oscars, after the miserable showing the Best Song category had this year. They snubbed Cher and Christina Aguilera performances in favor of Gwyneth Paltrow? Really? But then, it may have been difficult for Academy members to overlook the fact that "Burlesque" is really just a vehicle for Christina Aguilera to play movie star, and the story is so thin that it would have been better suited to a concept album and a corresponding series of music videos. Come to think of it, that's practically what this is.
Still, there's no denying the entertainment value of "Burlesque" for a certain audience, which includes me. I'm a fan of both Cher and Aguilera, so I relished the chance to see them work together. And for them, I was willing to put up with more nonsense than I suspect many other viewers would. But how could I resist? The movie is so happy and vulgar and toothsome and wholesome and idealistic all at the same time. It doesn't make a lick of sense, and how could it? But I suppose that's part of the fantasy, and we all need a silly feel-good movie like "Burlesque" every now and then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
