Joe Wright, the director of "Atonement" and "Hannah," has proven to be a reliable talent, especially with period films. Tom Stoppard is a playwright of rare esteem, who co-authored "Shakespeare in Love" among other classics. And then there's Keira Knightley, whose acting chops I've occasionally found reason to question, but she's delivered some good performances, including the title role of "The Duchess," which was about an adulterous noblewoman going against the social rules of her day and age. I'm not sure which of these three is to blame for the unfortunate state of the latest cinematic adaptation of "Anna Karenina," its director, its writer, or its leading lady. I suspect all three are partially responsible.
The first hour of the film is fine, if a little frantic. For those of you who don't remember your Tolstoy, Anna Karenina, played by Knightley, is married to Count Alexei Karenin (Jude Law), a rising figure in the Russian government with whom she has a young son. Anna travels to Moscow to help smooth over the aftermath of an affair involving Anna's brother Stiva (Matthew Macfadyen) and his wife Dolly (Kelly Macdonald). During Anna's visit, Dolly's younger sister Kitty (Alicia Vikander) rejects the affections of one suitor, Konstantin Levin (Domhnall Gleeson), in favor of the dashing cavalry officer Count Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). Unfortunately for Kitty, Vronsky and Anna become involved in a love affair that ultimately results in Anna's downfall in Russian society. Running parallel is the story of Levin's continued courtship of Kitty and his evolving understanding of his place in Russia's future.
"Anna Karenina" has extremely ambitious visuals. Much of the main action plays out on a literal stage, with shifting backdrops and props denoting changes in location. A character may ascend into the catwalks above the curtain, dressed to look like the docks, or drop beneath the stage into the trap room, which stands in for the slums. In one long take, we watch as an accounting office is transformed into a restaurant, the extras swapping visors for waiters' uniforms, dancing into position as the scenery changes. Musicians briefly invade the set before disappearing backstage again. It's all very beautifully choreographed, and the theater being a metaphor for Russian society is an apt one, but it's a conceit that gets tired very quickly. Fortunately, whenever the action moves away from the cities, Wright sets his scenes in the real world, with an emphasis on nature and farming life.
Now all the stagecraft and spectacle is fun up to a point, and I found that the introductory scenes played well. The trouble comes when Anna and Count Vronsky become involved, and their romance becomes the driving force of the rest of the film. This is where everything falls apart. Keira Knightley is clearly doing her best, and Anna Karenina was always a difficult character, but I don't think I've ever seen a more unsympathetic take on the tragic heroine. She gets no help from Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who comes off as pale and weaselly more than anything else. Jude Law fares much better as the wronged party, and creates some real tension when he and Anna clash. However, Knightley ends up alone onscreen for too many endless scenes, and it's simply too much for her. I don't think she does a bad job, but there's something terribly off-putting about her work in this film. At several points she struck me as miscast, a little too stiff to convey the consuming passion that drives Anna Karenina to ignore all instincts of self-preservation.
Then again, it doesn't help that Anna's descent is severely truncated, and her emotional state is too often unclear. Stoppard's script does a fine job with Karenin's arc and Levin's arc, but when it comes to Anna, it falls short. There's not enough time spent establishing her reasons for jealousy and doubt, and her later actions appear mercurial and mean-spirited. I understand the reason for shortening this section, because it would have been a long slog the way Wright presented these events. All that spectacular stagecraft mostly disappears in the last act, where it could have been a real help to liven things up. I was disappointed when I realized that Wright wasn't going to extend the theater metaphor to Anna's isolation and madness, choosing instead to play things completely straight, and falling victim to the tedium he was trying so hard to avoid. Instead of building to the famous climax, the movie just sort of meanders there. Maybe if Wright had stronger lead actors this approach wouldn't have seemed so underwhelming, but Knightley and Taylor-Johnson needed all the help they could get.
The rest of the cast boasts some formidable talents. Olivia Williams, Emily Mortimer, and Ruth Wilson appear in smaller roles. Alicia Vikander is a relative newcomer, but proves herself to be someone worth keeping an eye on. Jude Law gives the best performance, but I think my favorite is Matthew Macfadyen as the jovial Stiva, a valuable source of comic relief whenever he appears. Some may point to the inclusion of the Levin section as being too much of a distraction from the main story, but Domhnall Gleeson is very good at being depressed without being dull, and I ultimately found his subplot far more satisfying than watching Anna and Vronsky's labored love affair. Even cutting out all the poiltics and the religion, the filmmakers managed to get Levin right.
So it continues to confound me how they managed to get Anna Karenina so very wrong.
---
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Friday, December 14, 2012
The Sleepers of December
Something interesting has been going on at the box office lately. Between Thanksgiving and now, we've had the rare situation where not a single new film has opened that has managed to crack the top five. This means two weeks where the newcomers, including "Killing Them Softly," and "Playing for Keeps" have failed to make a dent, which has given some of the slower Thanksgiving releases some room to grow. The biggest sleeper hit of the season so far has been Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln." It has consistently held third place for almost a solid month, and it's about to cross the $100 million threshold domestically. However, two other films have gotten the most benefit from the lighter competition: Dreamworks Animation's "Rise of the Guardians" and 20th Century Fox's "Life of Pi."
"Guardians" and "Pi" opened in fourth and fifth place respectively on Thanksgiving weekend with a little over $30 million apiece. This was considered a triumph for "Pi," a risky $120 million prestige picture, and a disaster for "Guardians," which cost $145 million and had been expected to bring in a first weekend amount closer to $50 million. However, in the following weeks, both films started creeping up in the standings, suffering much smaller dropoffs than the two big blockbusters at the top of the chart, "Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2" and "Skyfall." "Life of Pi" remained in fifth place in its next two weekends, but during the week it was frequently.in third or fourth place. This past Tuesday, it pulled ahead of "Twilight" and "Lincoln" to come in second. "Rise of the Guardians" saw the opposite happen. It held steady fifth place rankings during the week, but it moved up to a third place weekend at the beginning of December, and then up to second place last weekend.
The press has largely written off both films as flops, but currently both "Guardians" and "Pi" have each made slightly over $63 million each domestically, and they've displayed enough holding power that they're expected to hang around in theaters for several more weeks, pushing those totals higher. In a more competitive season like summer, with big films coming out every week, this wouldn't have been possible, but December traditionally has some lulls that give these slow-burners a chance. "Guardians" is the only Christmas-themed movie in sight, and there's been a dearth of kids' films this season. "Pi" has racked up enough buzz that it looks like it's going to be in contention for some major awards at Oscar time, which could push its profile higher and attract more attention. Neither film is expected to hit $100 million in the end, but they might get close. They'll still both be bombs, but if they're lucky, they can avoid being major embarrassments.
The foreign numbers ought to help there. Currently "Rise of the Guardians" and "Life of Pi" are first and second at the worldwide box office, and have made $90 million and $100 million apiece so far. It's small potatoes compared to the numbers that the big franchises were doing earlier in the month, but good enough that total grosses should cover both films' budgets. "Life of Pi" was always expected to play better internationally, which is why FOX wasn't that concerned about the domestic receipts. It's been doing particularly well in Asia. "Rise of the Guardians," however, was a little trickier to gauge. It's a holiday themed film, and those don't always translate very well overseas - see "Hop" and "Arthur Christmas," for example. Instead, "Guardians" is doing very well globally, and it's a mystery why it failed to connect in the U.S. I wasn't thrilled with "Guardians," but I found it more appealing than a lot of the CGI kids' films that have outperformed it.
2012 has been quite a year for bombs, including "John Carter," "Cloud Atlas," and "Battleship." However, it's also been a good year for sleepers, including "Magic Mike," "Argo," and "Flight." "Rise of the Guardians" and "Life of Pi" look like they might end up fitting both categories. They cost too much to make a profit, but they're doing well enough that you can't really dismiss them as total failures either. They don't fit into the usual analyst models for box office performance, which emphasizes first week returns above all else. However, I think the sleepers and slow-burn pictures might become more prevalent, as studio slates are shrinking and we're starting to see the number of films being made each year decrease. This is giving the smaller and overlooked films more of a chance to make an impact.
Of course there are always going to be the gigantic behemoths like "The Hobbit," which is expected to dominate this weekend. But you have to have films in third and fourth and fifth place, and the ones that can hang in there for a couple of weeks and attract an audience, deserve some attention too.
---
"Guardians" and "Pi" opened in fourth and fifth place respectively on Thanksgiving weekend with a little over $30 million apiece. This was considered a triumph for "Pi," a risky $120 million prestige picture, and a disaster for "Guardians," which cost $145 million and had been expected to bring in a first weekend amount closer to $50 million. However, in the following weeks, both films started creeping up in the standings, suffering much smaller dropoffs than the two big blockbusters at the top of the chart, "Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2" and "Skyfall." "Life of Pi" remained in fifth place in its next two weekends, but during the week it was frequently.in third or fourth place. This past Tuesday, it pulled ahead of "Twilight" and "Lincoln" to come in second. "Rise of the Guardians" saw the opposite happen. It held steady fifth place rankings during the week, but it moved up to a third place weekend at the beginning of December, and then up to second place last weekend.
The press has largely written off both films as flops, but currently both "Guardians" and "Pi" have each made slightly over $63 million each domestically, and they've displayed enough holding power that they're expected to hang around in theaters for several more weeks, pushing those totals higher. In a more competitive season like summer, with big films coming out every week, this wouldn't have been possible, but December traditionally has some lulls that give these slow-burners a chance. "Guardians" is the only Christmas-themed movie in sight, and there's been a dearth of kids' films this season. "Pi" has racked up enough buzz that it looks like it's going to be in contention for some major awards at Oscar time, which could push its profile higher and attract more attention. Neither film is expected to hit $100 million in the end, but they might get close. They'll still both be bombs, but if they're lucky, they can avoid being major embarrassments.
The foreign numbers ought to help there. Currently "Rise of the Guardians" and "Life of Pi" are first and second at the worldwide box office, and have made $90 million and $100 million apiece so far. It's small potatoes compared to the numbers that the big franchises were doing earlier in the month, but good enough that total grosses should cover both films' budgets. "Life of Pi" was always expected to play better internationally, which is why FOX wasn't that concerned about the domestic receipts. It's been doing particularly well in Asia. "Rise of the Guardians," however, was a little trickier to gauge. It's a holiday themed film, and those don't always translate very well overseas - see "Hop" and "Arthur Christmas," for example. Instead, "Guardians" is doing very well globally, and it's a mystery why it failed to connect in the U.S. I wasn't thrilled with "Guardians," but I found it more appealing than a lot of the CGI kids' films that have outperformed it.
2012 has been quite a year for bombs, including "John Carter," "Cloud Atlas," and "Battleship." However, it's also been a good year for sleepers, including "Magic Mike," "Argo," and "Flight." "Rise of the Guardians" and "Life of Pi" look like they might end up fitting both categories. They cost too much to make a profit, but they're doing well enough that you can't really dismiss them as total failures either. They don't fit into the usual analyst models for box office performance, which emphasizes first week returns above all else. However, I think the sleepers and slow-burn pictures might become more prevalent, as studio slates are shrinking and we're starting to see the number of films being made each year decrease. This is giving the smaller and overlooked films more of a chance to make an impact.
Of course there are always going to be the gigantic behemoths like "The Hobbit," which is expected to dominate this weekend. But you have to have films in third and fourth and fifth place, and the ones that can hang in there for a couple of weeks and attract an audience, deserve some attention too.
---
Thursday, December 13, 2012
"The Wire," Year One
Some minor spoilers, but I'll try to keep them to a minimum.
Maybe it shouldn't have surprised me, but I find "The Wire" to be a considerably easier watch than "The Sopranos." Sure, the legalese and the policework is more difficult to follow, it's harder to keep track of the various players, and I found it significantly harder to penetrate the culture of West Side Baltimore than the New Jersey wiseguys. When you get down to it, though, the basic mechanisms are identical. Just swap out the comares for shorties, and the lifted merchandise for drugs, and it's the same old game. The difference with "The Wire" is that there is no charismatic central anti-hero figure. Sure, Stringer Bell has a lot of similarities to Tony Soprano, but the show's not about him. "The Wire" is about the system.
The individual characters in "The Wire" may not be a deftly drawn or as compelling as the ones in "The Sopranos," but I find them much easier to relate to and sympathize with. Detective McNulty is a typical hothead, with the same family problems and libido problems that we see in a lot of similar characters. However, he's not the typical hero figure and gets about the same amount of screen time as a half dozen other members of the large ensemble. It's really the story that drives the show, the day to day ins and outs of the investigation. McNulty becomes sympathetic because the harder he and Lt. Daniels and Detectives Greggs and Freamon push, the more resistance they meet with from their superiors. Every step forward requires the joint efforts of multiple actors, and the balancing of personal interests and political concerns from every corner. With the odds stacked so high against them, it's difficult not to root for the investigators.
It's the same for the characters who are members of Avon Barksdale's drug operations. The drug trade is portrayed as its own institution, with its own problematic rules and internal politics. Omar, the show's wild card who has no particular allegiance to either side, calls it "the game." One scene in particular caught my attention toward the end of the season, when an attorney is consulting with the leadership of the organization, laying out the requirements for a plea deal, calculating how many of their associates are going to have to go to prison and for how long, and who will have to be paid off to ensure their cooperation. The police are entangled in their institutions out of choice, but it's worse for the low level drug dealers and enforcers because these kids don't appear to have any alternatives. Every attempt to extricate themselves just leads to disaster. The drug trade is insidious, but most of the individual participants within it seem to have so little control of their circumstances, it's hard not to care about them too.
The first season of "The Wire" stands on its own very well by using this macroscopic approach, and limiting the story to a single investigation. Though it bucks the conventions of a typical police procedural, creator David Simon, veteran of many cop shows, knows those conventions well enough to use them to his advantage. So we get minor characters like Herc and Carver, who provide a lot of comic relief, but are not limited to being comic relief characters. So we get subplots like Bubbles' doomed attempt to get clean, which gives us a glimpse of the situation from the POV of the junkies being exploited by Barksdale's gang. Then there's poor Homicide Detective Santangelo, who gets caught up in department politics and ends up a pawn between McNulty and their supervisor, Landsman. It's not a big part, but it's one that is wonderfully emblematic of the intricacy and complexity of "The Wire," which shows us again and again how the systems function based on the decisions of the individuals within it, where all the myriad stress points and opportunities for corruption can occur.
"The Wire" may be one of the densest shows I've ever watched, far more challenging than something like "Game of Thrones." The approach to the subject matter is so comprehensive and so uncompromising, it's a little intimidating at first. However, the show does an exceptional job of getting viewers to feel for the plight of crooked cops and drug dealers, for humanizing the people who rarely receive this kind of time and attention anywhere else on television. And then there's the fact that the season has a definitive ending, unlike most police procedurals that deliberately leave the door open for more. Here the investigation concludes, the special unit disperses, and the perpetrators go to jail to do their time. The big problems remain unsolved and there's not much victory to go around. For most, it's back to business as usual. It's a rare finale that leaves the audiences with finality, but with few reassurances.
So where does the show go in Season Two?
---
Maybe it shouldn't have surprised me, but I find "The Wire" to be a considerably easier watch than "The Sopranos." Sure, the legalese and the policework is more difficult to follow, it's harder to keep track of the various players, and I found it significantly harder to penetrate the culture of West Side Baltimore than the New Jersey wiseguys. When you get down to it, though, the basic mechanisms are identical. Just swap out the comares for shorties, and the lifted merchandise for drugs, and it's the same old game. The difference with "The Wire" is that there is no charismatic central anti-hero figure. Sure, Stringer Bell has a lot of similarities to Tony Soprano, but the show's not about him. "The Wire" is about the system.
The individual characters in "The Wire" may not be a deftly drawn or as compelling as the ones in "The Sopranos," but I find them much easier to relate to and sympathize with. Detective McNulty is a typical hothead, with the same family problems and libido problems that we see in a lot of similar characters. However, he's not the typical hero figure and gets about the same amount of screen time as a half dozen other members of the large ensemble. It's really the story that drives the show, the day to day ins and outs of the investigation. McNulty becomes sympathetic because the harder he and Lt. Daniels and Detectives Greggs and Freamon push, the more resistance they meet with from their superiors. Every step forward requires the joint efforts of multiple actors, and the balancing of personal interests and political concerns from every corner. With the odds stacked so high against them, it's difficult not to root for the investigators.
It's the same for the characters who are members of Avon Barksdale's drug operations. The drug trade is portrayed as its own institution, with its own problematic rules and internal politics. Omar, the show's wild card who has no particular allegiance to either side, calls it "the game." One scene in particular caught my attention toward the end of the season, when an attorney is consulting with the leadership of the organization, laying out the requirements for a plea deal, calculating how many of their associates are going to have to go to prison and for how long, and who will have to be paid off to ensure their cooperation. The police are entangled in their institutions out of choice, but it's worse for the low level drug dealers and enforcers because these kids don't appear to have any alternatives. Every attempt to extricate themselves just leads to disaster. The drug trade is insidious, but most of the individual participants within it seem to have so little control of their circumstances, it's hard not to care about them too.
The first season of "The Wire" stands on its own very well by using this macroscopic approach, and limiting the story to a single investigation. Though it bucks the conventions of a typical police procedural, creator David Simon, veteran of many cop shows, knows those conventions well enough to use them to his advantage. So we get minor characters like Herc and Carver, who provide a lot of comic relief, but are not limited to being comic relief characters. So we get subplots like Bubbles' doomed attempt to get clean, which gives us a glimpse of the situation from the POV of the junkies being exploited by Barksdale's gang. Then there's poor Homicide Detective Santangelo, who gets caught up in department politics and ends up a pawn between McNulty and their supervisor, Landsman. It's not a big part, but it's one that is wonderfully emblematic of the intricacy and complexity of "The Wire," which shows us again and again how the systems function based on the decisions of the individuals within it, where all the myriad stress points and opportunities for corruption can occur.
"The Wire" may be one of the densest shows I've ever watched, far more challenging than something like "Game of Thrones." The approach to the subject matter is so comprehensive and so uncompromising, it's a little intimidating at first. However, the show does an exceptional job of getting viewers to feel for the plight of crooked cops and drug dealers, for humanizing the people who rarely receive this kind of time and attention anywhere else on television. And then there's the fact that the season has a definitive ending, unlike most police procedurals that deliberately leave the door open for more. Here the investigation concludes, the special unit disperses, and the perpetrators go to jail to do their time. The big problems remain unsolved and there's not much victory to go around. For most, it's back to business as usual. It's a rare finale that leaves the audiences with finality, but with few reassurances.
So where does the show go in Season Two?
---
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
“Big Bang” Backlash?
I first noticed the bitter comments on the AV Club reviews of “Community.” In every episode talkback, there are always a handful of complaints about how “The Big Bang Theory” has so much repetitive humor, that its multi-camera format is pandering, and that it feels too derivative of earlier sitcoms. And this makes sense coming from fans of “Community,” a riskier series that “Big Bang” regularly trounces in the ratings every Thursday at 8PM. And after the shenanigans over at NBC, we can expect further trouncings to come in a few months.
Then there’s the vitriol over on Reddit, where the young and the nerdy regularly go on spectacular rants about how the “Big Bang” characters are not real nerds at all, but a collection of stereotypical tropes that only approximate nerdhood, and invite the non-nerdy to mock and belittle them. Attempts to explain that all sitcom creatures are exaggerations don’t do much to convince them that the show’s creators meant no offense. Of course this is Reddit, which tends to prefer the niche to the mainstream, and often looks with some suspicion on the shows that do a little too well in the ratings. “Two and a Half Men” is another frequent target of their scorn.
And then I stumbled across this recent UGO article on the reasons why real geeks hate “The Big Bang Theory.” Some of them are clearly wrong, like the assertions that all the female members of the cast were treated like sex objects. With the recent prominence of female nerds Bernadette and Amy, that clearly isn’t true. There are also more generic complaints like the overuse of Sheldon, the laugh track, and the sense that the writers are running out of ideas – all common problems with most long-running sitcoms. However, a few of the listed reasons do seem to get at the heart of the matter: endless pop culture references, getting pop culture references wrong, the existence of better shows, and that “Big Bang” isn’t a good reflection of actual geek culture.
Now, as I’ve noted before, “The Big Bang Theory” was one of the first mainstream shows to have featured nerds as the lead characters with much success. Penny may be the audience surrogate, but she’s become more of a token normal in most episodes. Compared to how nerds were portrayed in the past on similar comedies, Sheldon, Leonard, Howard, and Raj are a major step forward. They dress like normal people! They have healthy relationships with the opposite sex! They don’t all follow the same template of nerdiness! But after six seasons, the novelty’s worn off, and there are other, more realistic nerds on television, like Troy and Abed from “Community.” “The Big Bang Theory” does a great job of making the characters accessible and interesting to non-nerd viewers, helping the ratings immeasurably, but maybe they’re a little too accessible.
I should mention that I’ve started watching the show again, since “Community” is stuck on hiatus until the midseason, and CBS is being reasonable about making recent episodes available online. It’s been nice catching up with the characters, and I still find I enjoy “The Big Bang Theory” very much. However, this is clearly a sitcom designed for casual viewing by a broad audience, and has more in common with “Friends” that it does with a show that’s really aimed at geeks, like “Futurama.” “Big Bang” is about nerds, but it’s not really made for nerds, who tend to prefer more cerebral, more challenging fare. And with that in mind, it must be frustrating as hell that “The Big Bang Theory” is so much more popular and has won so many more accolades than the nerd-favored niche shows.
This, I think, explains the prevalence of Sheldon bashing. Personally, I like Sheldon. He strikes me as a less erudite, more immature version of Niles Crane from “Frasier.” However, I agree that the overexposure has been doing him no favors. If Sheldon weren’t popular, but some secondary character on a critically-acclaimed FX sitcom, who only had a few lines per episode, he would probably be much more fondly regarded by the Reddit set. However, when everybody and your grandma likes Sheldon, repeats “Bazinga!” like it’s the funniest thing they ever heard, and gets the wrongheaded idea that all nerds are like the nerds on “The Big Bang Theory,” Sheldon becomes a perfect target for the resulting ire.
I don’t think there’s much the show’s creators can do to fix this, and I’m not sure they’d want to, considering the runaway success of “The Big Bang Theory.” The geeks and nerds who disdain the show, however, deserve our understanding and sympathy. It’s hard finding yourself represented in the media by someone who you don’t like. My mother still rolls her eyes every time someone mentions Connie Chung. However, “Big Bang” isn’t the only show about nerds out there, and “Big Bang” is already inspiring imitators. If we’re lucky Sheldon may pave the way for better TV nerds to come.
---
Then there’s the vitriol over on Reddit, where the young and the nerdy regularly go on spectacular rants about how the “Big Bang” characters are not real nerds at all, but a collection of stereotypical tropes that only approximate nerdhood, and invite the non-nerdy to mock and belittle them. Attempts to explain that all sitcom creatures are exaggerations don’t do much to convince them that the show’s creators meant no offense. Of course this is Reddit, which tends to prefer the niche to the mainstream, and often looks with some suspicion on the shows that do a little too well in the ratings. “Two and a Half Men” is another frequent target of their scorn.
And then I stumbled across this recent UGO article on the reasons why real geeks hate “The Big Bang Theory.” Some of them are clearly wrong, like the assertions that all the female members of the cast were treated like sex objects. With the recent prominence of female nerds Bernadette and Amy, that clearly isn’t true. There are also more generic complaints like the overuse of Sheldon, the laugh track, and the sense that the writers are running out of ideas – all common problems with most long-running sitcoms. However, a few of the listed reasons do seem to get at the heart of the matter: endless pop culture references, getting pop culture references wrong, the existence of better shows, and that “Big Bang” isn’t a good reflection of actual geek culture.
Now, as I’ve noted before, “The Big Bang Theory” was one of the first mainstream shows to have featured nerds as the lead characters with much success. Penny may be the audience surrogate, but she’s become more of a token normal in most episodes. Compared to how nerds were portrayed in the past on similar comedies, Sheldon, Leonard, Howard, and Raj are a major step forward. They dress like normal people! They have healthy relationships with the opposite sex! They don’t all follow the same template of nerdiness! But after six seasons, the novelty’s worn off, and there are other, more realistic nerds on television, like Troy and Abed from “Community.” “The Big Bang Theory” does a great job of making the characters accessible and interesting to non-nerd viewers, helping the ratings immeasurably, but maybe they’re a little too accessible.
I should mention that I’ve started watching the show again, since “Community” is stuck on hiatus until the midseason, and CBS is being reasonable about making recent episodes available online. It’s been nice catching up with the characters, and I still find I enjoy “The Big Bang Theory” very much. However, this is clearly a sitcom designed for casual viewing by a broad audience, and has more in common with “Friends” that it does with a show that’s really aimed at geeks, like “Futurama.” “Big Bang” is about nerds, but it’s not really made for nerds, who tend to prefer more cerebral, more challenging fare. And with that in mind, it must be frustrating as hell that “The Big Bang Theory” is so much more popular and has won so many more accolades than the nerd-favored niche shows.
This, I think, explains the prevalence of Sheldon bashing. Personally, I like Sheldon. He strikes me as a less erudite, more immature version of Niles Crane from “Frasier.” However, I agree that the overexposure has been doing him no favors. If Sheldon weren’t popular, but some secondary character on a critically-acclaimed FX sitcom, who only had a few lines per episode, he would probably be much more fondly regarded by the Reddit set. However, when everybody and your grandma likes Sheldon, repeats “Bazinga!” like it’s the funniest thing they ever heard, and gets the wrongheaded idea that all nerds are like the nerds on “The Big Bang Theory,” Sheldon becomes a perfect target for the resulting ire.
I don’t think there’s much the show’s creators can do to fix this, and I’m not sure they’d want to, considering the runaway success of “The Big Bang Theory.” The geeks and nerds who disdain the show, however, deserve our understanding and sympathy. It’s hard finding yourself represented in the media by someone who you don’t like. My mother still rolls her eyes every time someone mentions Connie Chung. However, “Big Bang” isn’t the only show about nerds out there, and “Big Bang” is already inspiring imitators. If we’re lucky Sheldon may pave the way for better TV nerds to come.
---
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
A Few Words on Extras
I made a decision to stop investing in physical media a while ago, and I never made any attempt at transitioning from DVDs to Blu-Ray discs. I don't have any kind of Blu-Ray player, and when I rent movies, it's always the DVD versions. One of the major consequences of this decision, along with a greater switch to consuming digital media, has been that I've completely fallen out of the habit of watching the studio-produced extras.
I used to love DVD extras, and would spend hours listening to commentaries, studying the featurettes, and guffawing at the blooper reels. They often ran longer than the films themselves. However, at some point several studios decided to strip the extras from the rental versions of their discs, in order to encourage viewers to buy the full versions. This never made much sense to me, as it actually removed a major motivator for me to rent a film I'd already seen for another viewing. Soon after that, the bulk of the better extras became Blu-Ray only features to encourage the switch from DVDs to the more expensive Blu-Ray discs. For instance, I was irritated to learn that "Ratatouille," one of the last DVDs I purchased, had a standard version that was so light on extras compared to the one for the previous PIXAR feature, "The Incredibles." Meanwhile, there was a Blu-Ray edition with a directors' commentary, making-of featurettes, and extra deleted scenes. These days, I've simply stopped paying much attention to the differences in releases, having stopped watching extras almost completely.
This doesn't mean I've stopped consuming supplementary materials though. Far from it. While I don't have access to the most desired official extras like bloopers, deleted scenes, and commentary tracks, there's plenty of information about the production of a film available through interviews, press reports, and especially marketing materials. Marketing campaigns have massively expanded in recent years, to the point where they're overlapping with the kind of material you expect to see as extras. Since I'm so wary of spoilers, I often avoid the marketing completely, and only circle back to look at what they offer after seeing the film. "The Hobbit" has its production blog videos, and just released the entire soundtrack of the film online. "Life of Pi" released several short "making-of" featurettes as part of its awards campaign, in order to highlight its technical achievements. And then there's Rian Johnson, who released a free director's commentary track for "Looper," meant to be listened to in conjunction with a theatrical screening of the movie, in order to encourage repeat viewings. I didn't hear much difference between that track and any regular director's commentary, but I'm certainly not complaining.
Keep in mind that these are only the official, studio-produced supplements. Once you go looking for them, there's no end to the ancillary material you can find online for a popular film. Director Q&A's have been everywhere lately because of the awards race, Comic-Con always brings tons of panels, and general media coverage frequently provides behind-the-scenes footage. There's also the inescapable reality that if there's anything really of substance in a deleted scene, it's going to be reported on, blogged about, analyzed, and dissected to death. The home media releases of "Prometheus" ruffled feathers earlier this year because many of the hotly anticipated deleted scenes were only available on certain releases. The content stayed exclusive, but the discussion of them sure didn't. For a few weeks, it seemed like every film blog was devoting articles to those deleted scenes, arguing about which ones should have been kept in the film, and how they might have helped to improve the difficult narrative. Even without seeing the actual clips, there was no longer any mystery as to what they depicted.
I guess this has been a very roundabout way of saying that while the studios like hyping up extras as a reason to buy Blu-rays, and to stick with traditional media instead of streaming services, it's not really working. I know a couple of film geeks who do care passionately about having access to these extras and will plunk down a few more bucks for them, but they're a pretty niche bunch. While I like seeing how the sausage is made, and I'm still hoping to see digital versions of extras eventually, they've never been necessary to my enjoyment of any film. Therefore, the incentive they provide has always been pretty limited. I think that's why we've been seeing more of the overlap with the marketing materials lately, as home media sales have dropped and the studios are trying to make the best use of their resources.
I don't think we'll be seeing the end of the extras any time soon though, not as long as people still find blooper reels funny and fans are curious about deleted and alternate scenes. However, it's worth remembering that they're not much to talk about without the films they supplement. Extras, after all, are just extras.
---
I used to love DVD extras, and would spend hours listening to commentaries, studying the featurettes, and guffawing at the blooper reels. They often ran longer than the films themselves. However, at some point several studios decided to strip the extras from the rental versions of their discs, in order to encourage viewers to buy the full versions. This never made much sense to me, as it actually removed a major motivator for me to rent a film I'd already seen for another viewing. Soon after that, the bulk of the better extras became Blu-Ray only features to encourage the switch from DVDs to the more expensive Blu-Ray discs. For instance, I was irritated to learn that "Ratatouille," one of the last DVDs I purchased, had a standard version that was so light on extras compared to the one for the previous PIXAR feature, "The Incredibles." Meanwhile, there was a Blu-Ray edition with a directors' commentary, making-of featurettes, and extra deleted scenes. These days, I've simply stopped paying much attention to the differences in releases, having stopped watching extras almost completely.
This doesn't mean I've stopped consuming supplementary materials though. Far from it. While I don't have access to the most desired official extras like bloopers, deleted scenes, and commentary tracks, there's plenty of information about the production of a film available through interviews, press reports, and especially marketing materials. Marketing campaigns have massively expanded in recent years, to the point where they're overlapping with the kind of material you expect to see as extras. Since I'm so wary of spoilers, I often avoid the marketing completely, and only circle back to look at what they offer after seeing the film. "The Hobbit" has its production blog videos, and just released the entire soundtrack of the film online. "Life of Pi" released several short "making-of" featurettes as part of its awards campaign, in order to highlight its technical achievements. And then there's Rian Johnson, who released a free director's commentary track for "Looper," meant to be listened to in conjunction with a theatrical screening of the movie, in order to encourage repeat viewings. I didn't hear much difference between that track and any regular director's commentary, but I'm certainly not complaining.
Keep in mind that these are only the official, studio-produced supplements. Once you go looking for them, there's no end to the ancillary material you can find online for a popular film. Director Q&A's have been everywhere lately because of the awards race, Comic-Con always brings tons of panels, and general media coverage frequently provides behind-the-scenes footage. There's also the inescapable reality that if there's anything really of substance in a deleted scene, it's going to be reported on, blogged about, analyzed, and dissected to death. The home media releases of "Prometheus" ruffled feathers earlier this year because many of the hotly anticipated deleted scenes were only available on certain releases. The content stayed exclusive, but the discussion of them sure didn't. For a few weeks, it seemed like every film blog was devoting articles to those deleted scenes, arguing about which ones should have been kept in the film, and how they might have helped to improve the difficult narrative. Even without seeing the actual clips, there was no longer any mystery as to what they depicted.
I guess this has been a very roundabout way of saying that while the studios like hyping up extras as a reason to buy Blu-rays, and to stick with traditional media instead of streaming services, it's not really working. I know a couple of film geeks who do care passionately about having access to these extras and will plunk down a few more bucks for them, but they're a pretty niche bunch. While I like seeing how the sausage is made, and I'm still hoping to see digital versions of extras eventually, they've never been necessary to my enjoyment of any film. Therefore, the incentive they provide has always been pretty limited. I think that's why we've been seeing more of the overlap with the marketing materials lately, as home media sales have dropped and the studios are trying to make the best use of their resources.
I don't think we'll be seeing the end of the extras any time soon though, not as long as people still find blooper reels funny and fans are curious about deleted and alternate scenes. However, it's worth remembering that they're not much to talk about without the films they supplement. Extras, after all, are just extras.
---
Monday, December 10, 2012
Introducing "Ruby Sparks"
Ruby Sparks is a dream girl. She's not some perfect feminine ideal, but instead the kind of kooky twenty-something cutie, played by Zoe Kazan, who would appeal to a sensitive young man like Calvin (Paul Dano). Calvin is a writer, whose great tragedy is that he wrote a hugely successful novel in his teens, but has failed to live up to his talent in the subsequent ten years. Having about as much luck with the opposite sex as he has with his recent writing, Calvin is depressed and seeing a therapist (Elliot Gould). One night he has a dream about Ruby and begins writing about her, hoping to overcome his writer's block. The next thing Calvin knows, Ruby has appeared in his house and believes she lives there as his girlfriend. Calvin and his brother Harry (Chris Messina) discover, after some experimentation, that Calvin can change Ruby however he wants by altering his manuscript. However, Ruby proves to have a mind of her own.
In addition to playing Ruby Sparks, Zoe Kazan also wrote the script for the film and Paul Dano is her real life boyfriend. Thus the metaphysical and metatextual implications abound in a story about writers and writing, creators and their creations. Directed by the husband and wife team of Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, "Ruby Sparks" is a very simple and small-scale story. Perhaps it's a little too small-scale, because several of the movie's central concepts aren't explored to nearly the extent that they could have been, and few of the characters besides Calvin and Ruby have much depth to them. When Calvin discovers his new powers, he doesn't question how or why he suddenly has this ability. Those questions are left to Harry, whose role is pretty much limited to sharing Calvin's secret and acting as a reminder that Ruby isn't a real girl. And despite the appearances of many familiar actors like Elliot Gould, Annette Bening as Calvin and Harry's mother, Antonio Banderas as her boyfriend, Alia Shawkat as a fangirl, and Steve Coogan as a rival author, they don't get very much to do.
However what they script does get very right is the relationship between Calvin and Ruby, and how Calvin has to deal with the realization that even though Ruby is his ideal, he's not prepared for the emotional reality of dealing with her day to day. The story focuses on what happens after a hero lands his dream girl, on mismatched expectations, inevitable frictions, and misunderstandings. It doesn't matter what the mechanism of Ruby's existence is ultimately, when the point is to comment on the consequences of being with girls like Ruby, who fit that "manic pixie dream girl" trope. Harry even warns Calvin at one point that Ruby is the kind of girl who it's fun to fantasize about, but who doesn't make a good girlfriend in real life. The self-awareness of the writing helps to distance the film from any overt supernatural "Twilight Zone" vibes or the usual wish-fulfillment silliness like "Weird Science." "Ruby Sparks" technically could be classified as a romantic comedy, but it skips right over the meet cute and the courtship, and ends up putting the characters in some pretty unexpected places.
It also helps that the leads are both strong. Paul Dano has had a good year, taking on several lead roles in smaller indie films, including this one. Calvin is a pretty shameless cliché of the earnest, but frustrated young writer with a tendency to romanticize things, but he's very convincing in the part. In fact, he's so convincing that I'm a little worried that Dano is going to get himself typecast playing moody writers after this and "Being Flynn." There's something awfully sympathetic about him, even when he's being a complete jerk. Zoe Kazan has a decent list of screen credits to her name, but this is the first movie where I really took notice of her. I like that Ruby comes off as pretty ordinary at first, and it really is her personality and her particular charm that distinguishes her as Calvin's idea of a perfect girlfriend. Dano and Kazan's chemistry together also translates well to the screen, and I could easily image the two of them in a more typical romance.
As for Kazan's as a screenwriter, I liked the ideas in "Ruby Sparks" a lot more than the execution, but I certainly enjoyed the movie and think she has a lot of talent. I liked the humor and the attitude and the idiosyncrasies. I think she certainly has it in her to tackle something bigger and more ambitious if she wants. And I really appreciate that Kazan had the guts and the foresight to not just wait for the right part to come along, but to write her own best role for herself.
---
In addition to playing Ruby Sparks, Zoe Kazan also wrote the script for the film and Paul Dano is her real life boyfriend. Thus the metaphysical and metatextual implications abound in a story about writers and writing, creators and their creations. Directed by the husband and wife team of Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, "Ruby Sparks" is a very simple and small-scale story. Perhaps it's a little too small-scale, because several of the movie's central concepts aren't explored to nearly the extent that they could have been, and few of the characters besides Calvin and Ruby have much depth to them. When Calvin discovers his new powers, he doesn't question how or why he suddenly has this ability. Those questions are left to Harry, whose role is pretty much limited to sharing Calvin's secret and acting as a reminder that Ruby isn't a real girl. And despite the appearances of many familiar actors like Elliot Gould, Annette Bening as Calvin and Harry's mother, Antonio Banderas as her boyfriend, Alia Shawkat as a fangirl, and Steve Coogan as a rival author, they don't get very much to do.
However what they script does get very right is the relationship between Calvin and Ruby, and how Calvin has to deal with the realization that even though Ruby is his ideal, he's not prepared for the emotional reality of dealing with her day to day. The story focuses on what happens after a hero lands his dream girl, on mismatched expectations, inevitable frictions, and misunderstandings. It doesn't matter what the mechanism of Ruby's existence is ultimately, when the point is to comment on the consequences of being with girls like Ruby, who fit that "manic pixie dream girl" trope. Harry even warns Calvin at one point that Ruby is the kind of girl who it's fun to fantasize about, but who doesn't make a good girlfriend in real life. The self-awareness of the writing helps to distance the film from any overt supernatural "Twilight Zone" vibes or the usual wish-fulfillment silliness like "Weird Science." "Ruby Sparks" technically could be classified as a romantic comedy, but it skips right over the meet cute and the courtship, and ends up putting the characters in some pretty unexpected places.
It also helps that the leads are both strong. Paul Dano has had a good year, taking on several lead roles in smaller indie films, including this one. Calvin is a pretty shameless cliché of the earnest, but frustrated young writer with a tendency to romanticize things, but he's very convincing in the part. In fact, he's so convincing that I'm a little worried that Dano is going to get himself typecast playing moody writers after this and "Being Flynn." There's something awfully sympathetic about him, even when he's being a complete jerk. Zoe Kazan has a decent list of screen credits to her name, but this is the first movie where I really took notice of her. I like that Ruby comes off as pretty ordinary at first, and it really is her personality and her particular charm that distinguishes her as Calvin's idea of a perfect girlfriend. Dano and Kazan's chemistry together also translates well to the screen, and I could easily image the two of them in a more typical romance.
As for Kazan's as a screenwriter, I liked the ideas in "Ruby Sparks" a lot more than the execution, but I certainly enjoyed the movie and think she has a lot of talent. I liked the humor and the attitude and the idiosyncrasies. I think she certainly has it in her to tackle something bigger and more ambitious if she wants. And I really appreciate that Kazan had the guts and the foresight to not just wait for the right part to come along, but to write her own best role for herself.
---
Friday, December 7, 2012
Dawn of the Duplass
I’ve been simultaneously trying to catch up on some of the smaller independent films that came out earlier in 2012 and familiarizing myself with the recent American independent film movement known as mumblecore, which I have ignored for too long. So I’ve recently worked my way through “Humpday,” “Hannah Takes the Stairs,” “Jeff, Who Lives at Home,” “Your Sister’s Sister,” and “Safety Not Guaranteed.” The common element of all of these films is writer-director-actor Mark Duplass.
Along with his brother Jay, Mark Duplass is considered one of the founders of the mumblecore movement, starting with their first directing effort, 2005’s “The Puffy Chair.” They’ve gone on to direct several other mumblecore features like “Baghead,” “Cyrus,” “Jeff, Who Lives at Home,” and their latest, “The Do-Deca-Pentathlon,” which hasn’t hit DVD yet. So far I’ve seen “Cyrus” and “Jeff, Who Lives at Home.” It’s taken me a while to appreciate the low-budget, DIY nature of mumblecore filmmaking, but I like how the stories are so simple and intimate, and rely heavily on character interactions and naturalistic dialogue. It makes for a nice break from the visually slick aesthetics of most mainstream films these days. There are some of titles that I still can’t wrap my head around, like Lena Dunham’s “Tiny Furniture,” but I’m starting to find some favorites too.
Now I’m still not completely sold on the Duplass brothers as directors. I had a hard time with “Cyrus,” but I liked “Jeff, Who Lives at Home” a great deal better. Solid performances and some good writing. My biggest concern is that the subject matter of both films is extremely limited. Both center on a particular brand of awkward, dysfunctional family dynamic, and the leads are immature adult males with some social neuroses. While I like the realistic approach to the material, which often comes across as a rebuke of Hollywood’s idiot manchild comedies, it’s material that’s been done to death. The delayed maturity of the American male has been perhaps the most prominent theme in American films since the late 90s. “Baghead,” their 2008 quasi-horror film, is supposed to be a departure from this, and I really need to go track it down before I make any further judgments.
So far, I think I prefer Mark Duplass as an actor, particularly his appearances in other independent films that break the mold a bit more. He’s been everywhere in 2012, playing major roles in Lynn Shelton’s dramedy “Your Sister’s Sister,” and Colin Trevorrow’s science-fiction tinged “Safety Not Guaranteed.” He’s also shown up in the more mainstream “People Like Us,” “Darling Companion,” and is listed in the cast of Katherine Bigelow’s upcoming “Zero Dark Thirty.” Somehow he also found the time to co-direct “The Do-Deca-Pentathlon,” which premiered at South by Southwest in March, and to keep appearing as one of the leads in FX sitcom “The League,” currently in the middle of its fourth season. Oddly, he’s never acted in one of the films he’s directed, something I’d love to see.
As a performer, Duplass has a great deal of charisma and this wonderful everyman quality to him. He can play more intellectual and put-together, as he was in “Humpday,” or someone going to pieces, like his would-be time traveler in “Safety Not Guaranteed.” Lynn Shelton’s films are largely based on improvisation, and you can get a good sense of how smart and insightful Duplass is as a performer from his work in “Your Sister’s Sister,” where he plays a damaged man in love with his dead brother’s widow. Even though a lot of his parts are variations on the same sort of character who might be a lead in one of his own movies, they’re also diverse enough to keep being impressive.
The one that really sold me on Duplass was his performance in Shelton’s “Humpday.” It has a ridiculous premise on paper, where Duplass’s character, Ben, reconnects with a close friend, Andrew, played by Josh Leonard. The two come up with the wild idea to make an art film where they sleep with each other on camera. Ben can’t ever quite articulate why he wants to do this, but convinces his wife, himself, and the audience that it’s deeply important to him. The final, extended sequence where Ben and Andrew find out exactly where the limits of their bromance are, is a nail-biter. And to top it off, all the dialogue in the film was improvised.
Thanks to recent technological innovations, we are living in a new age of multi-hyphenates, where filmmakers like Mark Duplass, Lena Dunham, and Louis C.K. are doing it all – acting, directing, writing, producing, and more. Duplass may not be as high profile as the others at the moment, there’s no question that he’s a creative force to be reckoned with. As he slowly moves into the mainstream, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he becomes one of our major American filmmakers, not just to the indie film fans, but everybody.
---
Along with his brother Jay, Mark Duplass is considered one of the founders of the mumblecore movement, starting with their first directing effort, 2005’s “The Puffy Chair.” They’ve gone on to direct several other mumblecore features like “Baghead,” “Cyrus,” “Jeff, Who Lives at Home,” and their latest, “The Do-Deca-Pentathlon,” which hasn’t hit DVD yet. So far I’ve seen “Cyrus” and “Jeff, Who Lives at Home.” It’s taken me a while to appreciate the low-budget, DIY nature of mumblecore filmmaking, but I like how the stories are so simple and intimate, and rely heavily on character interactions and naturalistic dialogue. It makes for a nice break from the visually slick aesthetics of most mainstream films these days. There are some of titles that I still can’t wrap my head around, like Lena Dunham’s “Tiny Furniture,” but I’m starting to find some favorites too.
Now I’m still not completely sold on the Duplass brothers as directors. I had a hard time with “Cyrus,” but I liked “Jeff, Who Lives at Home” a great deal better. Solid performances and some good writing. My biggest concern is that the subject matter of both films is extremely limited. Both center on a particular brand of awkward, dysfunctional family dynamic, and the leads are immature adult males with some social neuroses. While I like the realistic approach to the material, which often comes across as a rebuke of Hollywood’s idiot manchild comedies, it’s material that’s been done to death. The delayed maturity of the American male has been perhaps the most prominent theme in American films since the late 90s. “Baghead,” their 2008 quasi-horror film, is supposed to be a departure from this, and I really need to go track it down before I make any further judgments.
So far, I think I prefer Mark Duplass as an actor, particularly his appearances in other independent films that break the mold a bit more. He’s been everywhere in 2012, playing major roles in Lynn Shelton’s dramedy “Your Sister’s Sister,” and Colin Trevorrow’s science-fiction tinged “Safety Not Guaranteed.” He’s also shown up in the more mainstream “People Like Us,” “Darling Companion,” and is listed in the cast of Katherine Bigelow’s upcoming “Zero Dark Thirty.” Somehow he also found the time to co-direct “The Do-Deca-Pentathlon,” which premiered at South by Southwest in March, and to keep appearing as one of the leads in FX sitcom “The League,” currently in the middle of its fourth season. Oddly, he’s never acted in one of the films he’s directed, something I’d love to see.
As a performer, Duplass has a great deal of charisma and this wonderful everyman quality to him. He can play more intellectual and put-together, as he was in “Humpday,” or someone going to pieces, like his would-be time traveler in “Safety Not Guaranteed.” Lynn Shelton’s films are largely based on improvisation, and you can get a good sense of how smart and insightful Duplass is as a performer from his work in “Your Sister’s Sister,” where he plays a damaged man in love with his dead brother’s widow. Even though a lot of his parts are variations on the same sort of character who might be a lead in one of his own movies, they’re also diverse enough to keep being impressive.
The one that really sold me on Duplass was his performance in Shelton’s “Humpday.” It has a ridiculous premise on paper, where Duplass’s character, Ben, reconnects with a close friend, Andrew, played by Josh Leonard. The two come up with the wild idea to make an art film where they sleep with each other on camera. Ben can’t ever quite articulate why he wants to do this, but convinces his wife, himself, and the audience that it’s deeply important to him. The final, extended sequence where Ben and Andrew find out exactly where the limits of their bromance are, is a nail-biter. And to top it off, all the dialogue in the film was improvised.
Thanks to recent technological innovations, we are living in a new age of multi-hyphenates, where filmmakers like Mark Duplass, Lena Dunham, and Louis C.K. are doing it all – acting, directing, writing, producing, and more. Duplass may not be as high profile as the others at the moment, there’s no question that he’s a creative force to be reckoned with. As he slowly moves into the mainstream, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he becomes one of our major American filmmakers, not just to the indie film fans, but everybody.
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
