AP Bio Season One Review

Knowing that his days on dark sitcom behemoth ”It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” are numbered, Glenn Howerton takes a cue from co-star Kaitlin Olsen and makes a lateral move by transferring the same comi-sociopathic screen persona into a new sitcom arena.

“AP Bio” is a fun show with a premise that doesn’t hold up to any level of scrutiny. If you can get past the latter, you’ll be able to enjoy the former. It’s one thing to con your way into a teaching job and not care about doing it once you get there (the most notable example being “Bad Teacher”). It’s another to actively want to prevent your students from learning when it’s so much easier just to let them open their text books and read on their own.

The deal Howerton’s character, Jack, makes with his students is that he’ll give them an automatic A if they don’t rat out his anti-learning methods to the well-intentioned-but-aloof Principal Durbin. What about the AP exam or whatever 200-level biology class they might take in college? What about the fact that Jack regularly threatens Fs when he’s upset?  Watching Jack be so casually erratic and cruel is surely funny, but the show falls apart when the reasons his students don’t rat him out are so paper-thin.

For all of its celebration of Jack’s cruelty, the episodes have followed a bit of a TGIF-template wherein Jack softens at the end of the episode. He generally realizes his mistake and makes up for it somehow. This is all well and good, but the cycle of unfeeling task master to atoner and back to monster at the start of each new episode starts to wear thin by episode’s end. It's clear that the show is trying to have its cake and eat it too after a certain point, by making Jack evil with a capital E (in the latest episode, it's revealed that he is a highly competent at teaching biology after all) but also having him learn and grow. "AP Bio" desperately needs to split the difference.

The best that the show does on this front is to show that Jack's not as completely devoid of feelings as his alter-ego Dennis Reynolds at times. In the episode where he dates a single mom, he does discover within himself that he's enamored (or "freakin' enamored" as the episode is titled) and he's slightly more up front with his own parental issues and psychological baggage then Dennis. Still, it's not always entirely convincing that Jack exists other than as an ersatz for Dennis. 

It’s also worth noting, the show has some amazing features in the background. The multi-racial Greek chorus of teachers (Mary Sohn, Lyric Lewis, Jean Villepique) who have not yet caught on to the fact that Jack is a con-artist but provide him with sufficient enough foils, have a great chemistry and dialogue. If this show is any bit of a downer, they add  a level of upbeat energy. Additionally, the show could just as easily be about the kids since there are so many different shades  of color (Heather needs an upgrade to full cast member, spin-off, and so much more) and humor from the rapidly developing group of students.

Why Three Billboards Sends a Better Thematic Message for our Times than Get Out

When we champion films for nominations and wins during awards season, especially in this day and age where critics see less distinction between cultural commentary and ascetic judgement, what we're often talking about is the predominant societal message we want to see Hollywood express in the wake of whatever we feel are the primary cultural obstacle of the present day. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri and Get Out are twoof the nine films that have been nominated for Oscar outside of the nine films that have both been discussed as contenders for Best Picture and they’re to consider in tandem because they have contrasting ways of dealing with the same problem.

Get Out is a classic horror film created by Jordan Peele who I have a lot of respect for as an actor (standing out on a show that is spiraling downward as he did with Mad TV deserves a special kind of praise) and as the co-creative mastermind behind Key and Peele which mined the same thematic territory-- the awkwardness of racial tension -- as Get Out.

One of the main tenets of comedic effect is the release of tension (further academic study has also added recognition as a comic trigger so the more societally relevant) so Key and Peele's sketches already have a head start on our funny bones because they center on the tension we all recognize.

Like the 2016 film  Keanu in the action genre last year (not a particularly notable film depending on which film critic you ask), tailoring Peele's thematic message to a different genre comes with challenges. In the case of Get Out, the metaphor for racial awkwardness is presented not within the benign confines of comedic sketch but a more aggressive genre. More so, this is a genre with a protagonist and antagonists in the form of a well-meaning couple (a Guardian article, uses the term Liberal Racists ) who profess themselves Obama supporters but are decidedly less comfortable with their daughter dating a black person.

The film has been said by its creator to embody truth and Peele's achievement of authenticity is worthy of applause. HOWEVER, the question with regard to the film in terms of award season is if this thematic message is THE thematic message of the year. Such things are apples and oranges but Get Out is essentially microaggression: All the metaphor boils down to well-meaning people unintentionally making the black experience worse than they thought. Moreso, it's a celebration of anger (at least when seen through critical lens) at racial inequality.

The sheer number of articles in the culture sphere coming out on a daily or weekly basis
expressing anger at Hollywood (a known ally for liberalism) for not being inclusive enough, isn't so far removed from the anger that the Get Out audience is encouraged to feel (through literary means of
amplification) against an ally for not being inclusive enough.
On top of that, there's increased references I see in articles and, particularly on twitter, to the idea of anger being not just a valid response to hatred but a productive emotion. Amber Tamblyn (an actress I admire, to be clear), for instance, has labelled her political stance in several interviews as pro-anger.

Suffice it to say, I'm not sure that meeting microaggression with anger or defining yourself by that emotion is what we want to be THE message of the year.

In contrast, Three Billboards Outside of Ebbing Missouri is about a society that's consumed by anger. How entirely prescient. Most of the film’s characters live in a state of down-trodden weariness that characterizes much of the American rust belt. The film is ugly and bold enough to know that people aren't going to have an easy time processing it (from the critics of various factions to someone like myself who walked out of the theater feeling a sense of intense confusion before eventually loving it) but it's ultimately a film about the extremely difficult journey two people make in dealing with an unfair and yes, angry world and that journey begins with finding a semblance of inner peace.

In this sense, Three Billboards is the inverse of Get Out: The former desires to show us anger beneath the surface while the latter tells us what we already have known for a while: We live in an angry place and time.

More importantly: The former encourages us to take awareness we might not have previously had, convert it to anger, externalize it, and direct it towards a villain. The latter encourages us to look at the anger within ourselves before we engage with the outside world.

Personally, I think society could use more of the latter message.

Round-Up of Non-Current Films I've Seen: Admission, The World's End, 9 to 5, Amadeus, Wish I Was Here, West Side Story

Admission (2013): Tina Fey and Paul Rudd star in a rom-com about an admissions officer at Princeton who discovers that the son she gave up for adoption a long time ago is now college age and his untraditional teacher/mentor/ready-made love interest is pushing hard for him to get into Princeton for reasons that only exist to drive the plot forward. The lack of rhyme and reason behind an admissions officer throwing her integrity down the drain by giving preferential treatment to a son she never knew existed becomes a pretty distractable plot hole considering the opening voice over talks about how seriously Tina Fey takes her job. 

While we're on the subject, I'm getting tired at this point of Tina Fey playing the same character over and over: Intelligent late-30s women who are often the only sane person in the room, and filled with worries of being a childless spinster as age creeps up on them.

Additionally, the courtship between the two lead characters tips too early in the first act. 

So why did I see it? It had a killer trailer. Those will get you:

Amadeus (1984)-My favorite old film I saw in the past year. The best picture winner from 1984 was included on AFI’s initial list of 100 Greatest Films of All-Time for good reason. The film is essentially a tone poem exploring the concept of jealousy which is quite novel. Even more clever is the idea to use a lesser-known historic figure to tell the story of the movie's main subject. Tom Hulce and F. Murray Abraham were largely unknowns when they took on the respective roles of famed composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and rival Salieri. The film is based on a a myth that Salieri poisoned Mozart out of jealousy for his genius and while the version of Salieri seen here is a heavily bastardized version to fit the plot, it does help illuminate the life of Mozart and the context in which he lived. 

I wrote an article for TopTenz about classical music icons who lived like rock stars and found the similarities between the two pretty eye-opening: The reality is that Mozart could generously be described as a foul-mouthed prankster and a brat at worst. "Amadeus" treads in that territory and carefully layers Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's wardrobe and mannerisms with subtleties indicating the parallels between Mozart (the pink wig, the unchecked embracing of weird, the love of attention) and modern-day rock idolatry. 

Whatever Mozart's cause of death, there was a tragedy to his life that was universal to any artist and while the film brilliantly allots audience sympathy between both central figures, there's something endearing about Mozart and the fact that sales of Mozart spiked by 30%  in 1985 is indicative that Hulce's Amadeus did something right. 

9 to 5 (1980)-A good meditation on the #MeToo movement. I watched this mostly because I loved the song and found the movie serviceable. It was one of the highest grossing films of 1980 and deserves to be mentioned among landmark films of that time period. The film's pairing of Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin and Dolly Parton (in her acting debut) and the dream sequences in which the three fantasize about killing their bosses, are also among the most notable things about the film. The best thing about the film is the natural camaraderie between the leads and just how impressively villanous Dabny Coleman's character was.

World's End (2013)-After seeing Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim, and Baby Driver and admiring Edgar Wright's work in all three of those films, I thought the time was right to approach this ode to the apocalypse. 

The film was a dueling film with Seth Rogen's This is the End and coming into this film having watched the Seth Rogen film throws the viewer for a curve because it's not apparent until about an hour in that this is an apocalyptic zombie film of sorts. The film takes the facade of a stunted middle-aged man who recruits his more well-adjusted adult friends for one last attempt at some sort of epic monumental pub crawl. The idea of a pub crawl might not be as epic as it seems, but the film sells us that this is a substantial deal to the protagonist. It also sells us on his delusion by showing how little of a deal it is to the other guys. The adult-friends-coming-to-terms-with-their-youths genre here provides quite a bit of narrative thrust and the film nicely adds the attacking zombies when the former needs some pick-me-up. The film lacks the comic depth or the game-changing gimmickry of the other three films I saw but those films set the bar quite high, so I'm quite pleased with the film's more moderate resolution. The film also has a lot of Easter Egg symbolism (look at the royal connection in the character's last names) that I didn't pick up until I saw the IMDB section so that might have affected my opinion. 

Wish I Was Here (2014)-Confession: I didn't care for "Garden State." The plot felt by-the-numbers, uneventful, and I spent most of that film scratching my head over why Zach's character would be into a disabled girl. The story attempted to be more than a romance and embody several facets of his life, but the protagonist's relationship with his dad and friends seemed easily solvable (or, again, uneventful) and considering the big ending was him getting together with Natalie Portman, was it really that much more than a romcom masquerading as a holistic indie film?

In contrast, "Wish I Was Here" has a lot of non-romantic plotlines that aren't treatest as afterthoughts. Mandy Patinkin's father character is a genuinely tough obstacle to the protagonist's well-being and he even has some valid points underneath his crusty facade about the protagonist being financially unwise by pursuing acting full-time. The film deals with money, spirituality, maintaining a marriage, death, fatherhood, and being a good son and treats each of these plots with a good deal of weight. 

In contrast to how "Garden State" meanders slowly without significant actions, the world of this film's protagonist is one of near-constant chaos as he juggles an array of responsibilities and desires.

The remarkable thing about how much this film won me over is that I retroactively like "Garden State" a little more because I now have a sense of the guy's style.

West Side Story (1961)-I've seen this before, but it's even better on second or third viewing. For instance, like a John Hughes film, "West Side Story" really captures youth and what the world looks like through the lens of those with immature life experiences: Yes, it's not particularly rational that the Jets would embracee sloth in Officer Krupkee or exxagerate their feud with the Sharks, or that Maria and Tony would sleep with each other after their brother and foster brother were killed, but these are teenagers whether they try to deny their rebellious nature (as Tony does) or not (the rest of the Jets). 

The inherent problems of racism and othering also caught me here. I didn't catch in any previous viewing that Tony was short for Anton and isn't considered a true Caucasian by Bernardo, that "America" has such prescient foreshadowing to the 2010s (references to hurricanes, debt and many people not being aware Puerto Rico is part of America) and that Lt. Shrank is racist as a matter of practicality: He detests gang violence because it makes his job harder, but he assumes that the Sharks are a bigger problem than the Jets. And the choreography! Jerome Robbins got fired before the completion of the movie and his main contribution were the four dance numbers (Mambo, The Prologue, America, and Cool). 

Silicon Valley Season 5 Premiere

"Silicon Valley" operates under something akin to a Murphy’s Law but, if you've come to like these guys too much to want to see them become repeatedly screwed over, it’s fotunately become gradually less pessimistic:  The show now operates under a rule of chaos where things never go as expected and there’s some unexpected conflict. Granted, most dramatic television relies on the unpredictable but this show always amps up that variable to the extreme. Every week, the five partners of Pied Piper walk a careful tightrope between massive success and financial ruin. One of the missions of this show is trying to show us that the stakes in Silicon Valley are always high and we get a sense of this when we see just how much these guys are often sued for or how close these guys are to bankruptcy.

As someone who didn’t catch the last season and a half, I’ll readily admit lacking the perspective of someone who might have witnessed Erlich Bachmann’s progression towards obsolescence firsthand, but his departure still seems like a massive hole. This show treads heavily in character-based comedy in the vein of “Parks and Recreation” or “The Office” but (judging by this episode) "Silicon Valley" doesn’t appear to have expanded its universe of recurring characters which puts a lot of pressure on the existing slate to carry all the facets of this multi-layered world. While the eccentricities of Gavin Belson and Laurie Bream are nicely developed and Jian-Yang looks to be getting more screen time, the majority of the show’s dialogue was the main quintet set apart from the outside world in their alternating between trouble-shooting and internal squabbling. My suggestion here: Monica, Jian-Yang, or some newcomer needs to be worked closer into the gang’s inner circle to be able to provide the necessary counter-balance in this new dynamic.

While I’m only marginally qualified to review this show considering I’ve fallen by the wayside for the last season and a half (though I will defend TO THE DEATH the practice of jumping into a show midway through as a viewer), the plot fell so easily into the template of past episodes that I’m starting to theorize that Silicon Valley is designed to appeal in syndication as non-serialized. Sure, the status of Pied Piper has constant changes but the company is fluctuating so constantly and the characters stay constant enough. Besides, there’s generally a nicely-laced narrative within the span of each episode.

This week saw Richard continue his war of attrition with Gavin Belson. As opposed to the first two seasons where Richard and crew were simply taking beatings left and right, we’re seeing two equally matched opponents playing high-stakes chess. As a sign of Richard’s newfound status somewhere between little and big fish in a pond of fluctuating size, he’s able to outmaneuver two more green and naïve competitors. More significantly, he comes into the interactions with these two with a far nastier demeanor and a resolve for vengeance. Considering the Sliceline CEO was more aloof than someone with the vindictiveness of Gavin, Richard’s moral exoneration isn’t as clear-cut and that’s what’s making this show a must-watch. During the heyday of “The Office” we used to have endless debates on the IMDB boards over the morality of the Dunder-Mifflin employees and the grey territory of Pied Piper can be debated in a spiritual fashion along these same grounds.

A week-in-TV recap from January: Fresh Off the Boat (Liar Liar), LA to Vegas review, Good Place (Best Self, Leap of Faith), The Mick (Trip, Climb), Corporate (Void, Powerpoint of Death), Gifted

A very casually written (as in not something that should be used as a professional sample of my work) week-in-TV recap I do for the folks at the Ice Box that was posted back in January:

Fresh Off the Boat: Liar Liar
This TV show tries to have an A-plot and B-plot that thematically run together a little too consciously: Nicole wants to fit in with her crush and Louis wants to fit in with the guys. The only problem is that I cannot remember anything about Louis’s plot a few days after watching the episode. Some people would say I have a responsibility as a critic to rewatch so I can recap, but screw those people: If you can’t remember anything about a plotline, it must have sucked. It makes sense: Louis is an easy-going guy. He’s great at facilitating plots but he’s not particularly strong as the central conflict of an episode. In the A-plot, Nicole learns a lesson about love and Eddie follows the same pattern of being a good guy but having stumbling books en route. Eddie’s tastes have always been grounded in things that seem stupid in retrospect and here, he can’t get enough of Jim Carrey.
Two main discussion-provoking questions: 
1) Is Nicole’s courtship with the other Lesbian girl an accurate portrayal of teenage lesbian courting in that time period? I am one year younger than Eddie and at that time in the late 1990’, it was very common to be suspicious about other people being gay and it was definitely a bad thing or something that had to be explained away. Compound that with the teenage ostracizing and I’m wondering just how on the DL Nicole needed to be. The gay people I knew in my high school struggled enough to be recognized as gay, let alone have love lives. They generally assumed that if they went to a very liberal college or moved to a big city, they would be able to have them. Of course, it would help that Nicole was very badass (at least in the early episodes. Her first on-screen appearance was knocking a slushie out of a kid’s hands although she’s since been softened almost to the point of flanderization) and already popular in school when coming out?
2) Is "Fresh Off the Boat" intended to comment on the 90’s with appreciation for it or is it intended to comment ironically? Eddie’s obsession with gangstar rap is always played for absurdity. A number of these references, that the show thrives on, is treated without the distance that we have now. In the 1990s, we thought that Titanic would never be equaled in terms of storyline or special effects, that Shaq had a promising career as an actor and that Jim Carrey was high art.

LA to Vegas: First Two Episodes:
The attempt at a balls-to-the-wall lowbrow look at the airline industry (similar to “Airplane” but with slightly less scatological humor) follows Dylan McDermott (best known as Dermot Mulroney’s evil twin), Nathan Lee Graham (best known for playing stereotypical gay roles in films like “Zoolander” and “Sweet Home Alabama”), and Kim Mutola (no idea who she is but she can play standard vulnerable blonde protagonist serviceably) play our surrogate eyes and ears for what it’s like to work on an airplane. The two flight attendants are a bit more grounded in reality whereas Dermot Mulroney (ooops, I mean Dylan McDermott) conveys Leslie Nielsen levels of absurdity as his antics so far include whining about not joining the mile high club, having drinks with passengers, losing the muscle memory to land the plane, and doing jujitsu on a passenger.

Peter Stromare (seriously? This undervalued dramatic character actor has nothing better to do than do an imitation of  Bali from “Perfect Strangers”?) plays a gambler of Eastern European descent and Ed Weeks ("Mindy Project") plays an economics professor who serves as Ronnie’s (Mutola) love interest. These two (and the strippers that appeared in the pilot but not the second episode might also recur, who knows) [update: Several episodes in, it's now apparent that Olivia Macklin is regular on the show as the Nichole] are connected to the show through sitcom-logic which keeps characters together in the same space that otherwise might not be (“Community” and the 2006 Jason Ritter vehicle “The Class” would fall under this) if you consider that occasionally one of these two might book another flight.
[Update: This review should be extended to note that ]

The show, at this point, is adequate with some room for growth.

The Good Place-Best Self/Leap of Faith
Leap of Faith was a little plot-holey. Didn’t Michael play it a little close to the vest with their eternal damnation at stake? The script nicely patched in that hole with the workaround that Michael left them thousands of clues but they only get a few of them. It still felt like a work-around.
From our perspective, however, the episode delivered exactly what The Good Place does which provides comic suspense. The Good Place often seems like it only has one or two episodes left in totality and no idea what it will do next.

“Best Self” was anti-climactic in the first act. The four needing to get on a balloon is a perfect conundrum you hope would take a whole episode to work through, but it was all a shame. Bummer. Then the episode devolves into a sentimental boozefest which is kind of fun from a hang-out perspective, but remember these guys are on the 800th reboot and don’t know each other as well as our out-of-universe perspective. The episode ends with its best bit of humor in Sean texting with the style of a teenager (autocorrect acknowledgements, lols) as he’s talking about hellfire. The episode ends with the one necessity it needs to move the plot forward (their new idea for how to get into heaven). This is a TV show with a long endgame, so having only one plot-relevant moment an episode and letting everything else fall under comedy is not necessarily bad.

The Mick: The Climb
“The Climb” has the kind of maneuvering between characters that epitomizes this show at its best. Ben has a twerp (autocorrect was not particularly generous with my first attempt at that word) of a friend that pisses Mick off until she realizes that her mom is former 90210 star Jenny Garth. Millions of 90’s children probably stared at the screen wondering: Where the hell has Jenny Garth been all this time? Very rarely have I ever seen such random stunt casting, so bravo! The pretentiousness of privileged kids is nailed so well in this episode as is the one-upmanship of Mick and Sabrina with Alba playing a wildcard of sorts (a job that generally alternates between Jimmy and Alba).

Chip is a brat that I’ve even called one of the few appropriate uses of the label “toxic masculinity” (I generally find it a non-sensical crutch): He’s just awkward around everyone. The entirety of the episode was a waiting game of cringe: At what point will Chip let down his father figure? Apparently the answer was never which was an odd half hour of sitcom TV. Sitcomdom depends on conflict: We’re not used to watching a character cook up a hair-brained scheme and succeed at it. I suppose I’m happy for Chip. The episode segues to some continuing search for Chip's father but asking us to be further invested for this plot line is dependent only on the comic payoff and we need to see more seed of something funny to come other than a mug shot. 

Corporate-The Void/The Powerpoint of Death
Woohoo, fresh new TV shows for us to sink our critical teeth into and gnaw away. Following off “Idiotsitter” “Big Time in Hollywood Florida” and others that escape my memory at the moment, Comedy Central often takes chances on unknown comedic teams like this. I do not recognize a single person in the cast, but because it’s a lot like “Better off Ted” or “A to Z” or “Selfie” in its mockery of workplace drudgery, I keep thinking of the characters as Christina Kirk-light (“A to Z” but she also resumed the role of office straight man in “Powerless”) or David Harewood-light (“Selfie”). Maybe if your show lasts more than nine episodes, guys, I’ll learn your names.

The show has a darker current than the above-mentioned shows (it certainly doesn’t help that the bouncy salsa-esque score of “Better off Ted” isn’t used here to indicate sitcom cues) but still falls into the rhythms and beats of a modern sitcom as opposed to “Silicon Valley”, which is equally bleak, but puts less pressure on itself to make its laughs fit into a gift-wrapped half-hour box.

Gifted-The Last Three Episodes
Without spoiling anything, “The Gifted” (which I honored on My Year in TV best of the year list ) carries the same level of adrenaline to its conclusion with character allegiances being switched, other characters adapting on the fly, and lots of glorious chess-style (i.e. let’s use a power A against his power B, while sacrificing our hideout in response to power C) maneuvering that mutant-style shows make capable of providing excitement.

The show, more than anything, deserves credit for making late adolescent problems seem dramatically appropriate at the level that falls below melodrama.

Questions still persist about whether Reed (Stephen Moyer) and Kaitlyn (my crush Amy Acker who seems to always have her hair properly blow-dried) do much other than allow the show to be called a family story. A more heavy-handed example of this was the short-lived ABC show “No Ordinary Family” with Michael Chiklis and Julie Benz as parents (and superheroes themselves) who would often loudly proclaim things like “We’re not tearing this family apart!” or “We have to think about what’s best for the family!” Despite having no superpowers, Reed and Kate seem far more woven in the fabric of the mutant underground than I otherwise would have expected. Yes, they’re doting parents but they’ve also become part of the extended larger family.

The show concludes in a way that doesn't feel fully resolved but allows us to catch our breath. It's been a pretty wild ride.

Crashing (HBO) vs Every Other Comedy Series in History

Credit: Deadline.com

Before the HBO series “Crashing” came along, the tired genre of comedians playing slightly modified versions of themselves consisted of two basic categories: Deranged clowns ("Seinfeld", "Curb Your Enthusiasm", "The Comedians", "Legit") or depressed clowns ("Mr. Saturday Night", "Louie", Larry Sanders Show"). Because comedians are naturally entertaining and often are good at expressing comedy with a unique voice, much of this fare is still watchable and entertaining even if it’s not particularly innovative.  The freshest take I’ve seen in recent years has been the Netflix offering “Lady Dynamite” which took the deranged metaphor literally and used it as a platform for a soft exploration into mental illness.

“Crashing” however is not just a fresh take within already-tried confines but it’s something I've never seen done successfully. It’s a show that shows that the archetypal comedian is not necessarily synonymous with traits of amorality, loneliness or flat-out craziness.

The first season of the show begins with a wet-behind-the-ears Pete Holmes (played, of course, by Pete Holmes) who’s forced out of his marriage by a wife who cheats on him because she needs someone more exciting in bed. In his late 20s, Holmes is forced to come to the realization that he has quite a bit of adulating to do as his Christian upbringing and the complacency of married life has stunted his development quite a bit.  Unable to support himself, Holmes is saved by a near supernatural ability to fall into random encounters with comic celebrities and, even more luckily, he elicits their sympathy enough to get a place to stay (hence, the title of the show).

The show’s cleverness is that all this depression and vice you ordinarily see in the genre is filtered through the lens of an audience surrogate in Holmes who manages to hold on to his cheerful naiveté in forging his new relationship with himself and his new circle of friends.  Some of these friends like Artie Lange could set the depraved comedian trope to new heights if he were to star in his own show, but through the eyes of Holmes, he elicits empathy. Similarly, the off-kilter nature of many of the other characters –TJ Miller has a bit of a God complex, Richard Burr is a bit miserable in domestic life to the point of being unappreciative of his wife, Sara Silverman is a bit overly trusting – is minimized when seen through the eyes of Holmes who sees them for their faults but also for their generosity.

Whereas the comedy scene is generally portrayed in fiction as a cesspool that collects the bottom feeders of society, “Crashing” is about a man who chooses comedy simply because he feels it’s his life’s calling. The second season sees Holmes in a gradual arc of losing contact with his innocence as he sells out his act with a catch phrase, let’s a little cursing slip into his language, and has his first sexual encounter outside of marriage.  However, whereas the typical the comedy scene is generally portrayed as a cesspool that brings out the worst in people the longer they dwell in it, the sense of camaraderie and mutual support is emphasized here.

25 Best Performances of 2017

Loosely written  post to recap of the year that was in film now that the Oscars are upon us. This is out of the 35 films I saw:
1. Gary Oldman, The Darkest Hour-This gives me no pleasure to actually write this. It's like proclaiming the sun the brightest object in the sky and giving an award for it. He's playing Winston Churchill; he put on a fat suit, of course, he's going to get an award for it. But objectively, he's the best
2. Sam Rockwell, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri-Rockwell has oscillated wildly between mainstream and indie fare and, like Johnny Depp's career, has generally waited for the right film to come to him. This film has rightfully launched him into the stratosphere and it turned me into a Sam Rockwell convert. The charges that the handling of the character is haphazardly racist are made by a few people whose voices are being amplified too highly and are indicative that Martin McDonagh did something right by being provocative in the first place. This is a challenging role, but more than that, a challenging character.
3. Tom Cruise, American Made-Either the best Tom Cruise performance ever or the the best that exists in my memory banks  It's been a while since Cruise has sunk his teeth into a role like this and reflects his maturity. Since Oprah-gate and the website Tomcruiseisnuts.com got launched, Cruise retreated from being an actual actor into a standard action star, and this time, it's astounding that he's really going for it and this is pretty much all that and a bag of chips. He's present the entire film, he has a subtle arc, he's outlandish and larger-than-life, he does accent work, he does his own stunts (duh!), he's tragic
4. Holly Hunter, The Big Sick-A fearless performance that mines humor out of idiosyncracy while veering away from stereotype. Her snub was tragic.
5. Bria Vinaite, Florida Project-A tour de force. She's loud and even a little fear-inducing.
6. Frances McDormand, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri-Rightfully awarded a second Oscar. McDormand traditionally traffics in equal parts fear and empathy.
7. Jason Mitchell, Mudbound-Mitchell portrays the chip on his shoulder, the sense of nearly unshakeable self-pride, and the quiet dignity in making do with his circumstances. The look in his eyes as he stares down a threatening mob is harrowing.
8. Richard Jenkins, The Shape of Water-Giles is an endearing wet mess of emotion. He wears his heart on his sleeve, his relation with Eliza is heartwarming and his relationship with the pie owner is just as heartbreaking. Jenkins finds just the right tinge of camp to let the character's identity known to the audience without it coming across as a cariciature.
9. Christopher Plummer, All the Money in the World-Plummer's presence.as Paul Getty is helped by the regal grandiostiy of the surroundings that puts anyone in his castle at a disadvantage. But scenerey aside, Plummer plays Getty with a steady aloofness characteristic of what one would imagine the world's dumbest millionaire is.
10. Jason Clarke, Mudbound-The underrated actor portrays a character who is both an instrument of oppression and an honest man who's resigned himself to the fact that his misfortune at being born in the wrong station in life will never go away. To make both facets of this character appealing isn't something that's easy to do.
11. Margot Robbie, I Tonya-This sympathetic portrayal of Tonya Harding is fun, subversive and requires the actress to react to the bizarrest of circumstances over a decade-long arc. Bonus points for momy issues.
12. Ansel Elgort, Baby Driver-His air guitar in the opening number and the way he dons those sunglasses establishes just how cool he is within the first two minutes. Everything from making a sandwich to doing laundry is a display of sleek acrobatism in his hands, but Elgort also portrays the vulnerability, the emotional attachment to his deaf guardian, the fear of riding along with dangerous men, and he sells us on the love story.
13. Willem Dafoe, The Florida Project-The performance absolutely deserves its Oscar despite its low placement here. His steadfast authoritative demeanor with a hint of gentility underneath makes him a strong presence. It was just that good of a year.
14. John Lithgow, Beatriz at Dinner-Supremely relatable as the man we often meet at many a cocktail party who is powerful enough to go unchecked in his lack of natural charisma. He makes a tasteless or bland joke and people laugh because they know it will position him closer to power. He's grown so accustomed to power his whole life that his moral compass has been withered to a shard. Lithgow plays Doug as a man who's malicious from an outsider's perspective but also unaware of just how bad he is.
15. Sally Hawkins, The Shape of Water-A performance that was a ttad too cutesy to really feel like the best part of an excellent piece of film making. To be fair, I'm not sure what the right way to handle the awkwardness of human-fish sex or the even more awkward subsequent scene of explaining the anatomy of human-fish sex to your coworker using sign language.
16. Selma Hayek, Beatriz at Dinner-Just as Lithgow is oblivious to his own maliciousness, Hayek's character is wonderfully oblivious to the finer points of dinner etiquette even if she is almost saint-like in her moral character. Is it wrong? Not necessarily, but it's awkward as hell and that's the cringe that drives the whole movie.
17. Colin Farrell, The Beguiled-Farrell plays a wounded Civil War soldier recovering in a women's boarding school who turns sinister on a dime during the film's second act. It's a fine belanacing act and Farrrell can do period extremely well. He's as gentlemanly and lovelorn as a character in a Jane Austen novel as Mr. Hyde and while his transition to  Dr. Jekyll isn't particularly well-foreshadowed, it's still Farrell at or near his best.
18. Ben Mendelsohn, The Darkest Hour-Colin Firth, shove a fork in it! Seriously, this understated performance was just the right amount of King George VI to last me for one movie outing. No need to treat a stuttering king as the entirety of the whole movie.
19. Aubrey Plaza, Ingrid Goes West-Aubrey Plaza's presence is still a solid reason to watch a movie, but despite the range of roles she picks, her limitations in accent work still holds her back. Her ability to deadpan is still hard to top and it gives her a great screen persona but that's why I bump her a little down on the list for an otherwise great performance.
20. Laura Dern, Wilson-Probably my least conventional choice. Laura Dern is great at playing hot messes and this is a white poverty version of Amy Jellicoe in "Enlightened".
21. Kirsten Dunst, The Beguiled-The chemistry between Dunst and Farrell that turns from innocent curiosity to what seems to be a mature romance to dread and back again to lust draws out a lot of colors in Dunst. When Dunst and Farrell finally *SPOILER ALERT* get it on, it's hotter than that upside down kiss in "Spider-Man"
22. Lily James, Darkest Hour-A complete 180 from her gregarious waitress in "Baby Driver," James's character is a study in reactions in observations. Joe Wright said in interviews that James's character is the heart and soul of the movie. A female audience surrogate to provide contrast against the largely male climate of the film.
23. Robert Pattinson, Lost City of Z-Who would have thought the actors from "Twilight" would have some of the greatest success in the following decade. As the sidekick to one of the Amazon's greatest explorers, Pattinson embodies the "stiff upper lip" English attitude in the face of horrific insects and humidity that's almost tragi-comic. He forms a visible  emotional bond with the protagonist in short order on screen and he plays the role with admirable physicalilty.
24. Rooney Mara, Discovery-She's a manic pixie dream girl with a goth streak and has some of the hottest. This was an awful film but she really stuck out in a room
25. Jon Hamm, Baby Driver-A bit thin on pathos but it's a stylized film and Hamm's Buddy is a creation that cherry-picks the traits of a dangerous villain and hides them under a layer of grandiose theatricality. Hamm has a lot of fun with the part.

Looking back at 2001 in film

When film critics and like looked back at the year 2001 at their end of the decade retrospective lists (such lists from AV Club, Paste Magazine, IFC, Roger Ebert and compilation at Mubi.com) they found a year rich with great films including "Mullholland Drive", "Fellowship of the Ring", "Gosford Park", "Amelie", "Momento", "Moulin Rouge!", "Ghost World", "In the Bedroom", "The Royal Tanembaums" "Donnie Darko"

Whether I personally like those abovementioned films or not, I can appreciate that the above-mentioned films are all ambitious and well-respected pieces of work. At the same time, my personal experience from 2001 was that it was a terrible year and I distinctly remember an echo of similar sentiments. Within this paradox lies a pretty interesting set of examples of how films age in time.

The reason for this disconnect is that the above-mentioned list of films were not the films that were most anticipated. In many cases these were films that no one really saw when they came out and grew a cult over time. For example, if you've never heard of the film "Donnie Darko" until very recently, don't feel like you're out of the loop. Virtually no one saw it in theaters or even knew of its existence when the film actually came out. It played in just 58 theaters when it opened (for comaprison, your average movie opens in 3,000-4,000 theaters), grossed about $500,000 and was swept out of circulation in just 4 weeks. It was so slow to catch on that among the small number of awards it raked in for indepentent film were awards bodies that didn't get around to honoring the film until 2003.

The films that people were excited about at the time and actually saw in theaters were mostly disappointments. Do you remember any of these films today?

• Hearts in Atlantis-Directed by Scott Hicks, starring Anthony Hopkins, adapted from Stephen King
• Shipping News-Directed by Lasse Hallstrom (he had two Oscar-nominated films in a row in 1999 and 2000), starring Kevin Space and, Julianne Moore
• Captain Corelli's Mandolin-Directed by John Madden, starring Nicolas Cage, Penelope Cruz
• The Mexican-Directed by Gore Verbinski, starring Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts, Gene Hackman
• All the Pretty Horses-Adapted from a Cormac McCarthy, starring Matt Damon and Penelope Cruz, released by Miramax (aka the Oscar Factory) on Christmas day
• Vanilla Sky-Directed and written by Cameron Crowe, starring Tom Cruise, Cameron Diaz, Penelope Cruz
• The Majestic-Directed by Frank Darabont ("Green Mile", "Shawshank Redemption"), starring Jim Carrey
• The Man Who Wasn't There-Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, starring Billy Bob Thornton, James Gandolfini

The directors of five of these films had been nominated for or won an Oscar within the three years prior to 2001, so the public understandably had great anticipation to their follow-up project. Although some people liked "The Man Who Wasn't There" (this particular author did not) and Jim Carrey still stands by his work in the "Majestic" (this particular author hasn't seen that one), a lot of these films were disappointing.

In the meantime, many of the films that are now classics weren't particularly loved back then with the exceptions of "Lord of the Rings" and "Royal Tenenbaums" Let's look at why the other films weren't well-received at the time:

• "A.I." was awkwardly marketed as a summer blockbuster and audiences found it too thinky. 
• Like the recent 2009 release "Precious," "In the Bedroom" seemed really depressing and had nothing else to market itself on. The only appeal of the film was that it was nominated for an Oscar prompting you to see it so you could join in the conversation. It's box-office take shows an unusually gross imbalance of people who saw it only after it was nominated. Context is also important. Melodramas have become more successful since this film came out such as "Far From Heaven", "Revolutionary Road", and "Little Children" which might have given this film more appeal.
• In context, Christopher Nolan's "Momento" wasn't a very easy sell. Nolan was not a bankable filmmaker at the time and the concept sounds pretty convoluted on paper.
• Moulin Rouge! was polarizing at the time. Some people think Baz Luhrrman was (and still is) all glitz and glamor. I really don't think people knew what to make of it. It was only after a lot of other musicals came out and the genre was revived (this literally was the first musical in years, not counting Evita, to be released in theaters) that critics looked back and said "You know, nothing quite had the energy and bold ambition of Moulin Rouge!" When critics see a lot of films (they usually see at least 200 films a calendar year*), they tend to be desnsetized to the ordinary and be attracted to films that stand out. 
• Mullholland Drive was also incredibly polarizing. No one could understand the ending which invalidated the point of the entire film. I think that years later the film-watching community** gained a greater appreciation for this film because they realized that one of the few universal moments of movie-watching unity they all collectively felt was scratching their heads at the ending of Mullholland Drive. It also helps you appreciate the film when you have some plausible idea as to what the film is all about: I distinctly remember browsing the internet for answers and finding none after watching the film when it first came out on video.
• Ghost World sounded too bizarre to even catch my attention at the time. It was based on a comic book but had no action scenes? I now consider it my favorite film from that calendar year, but I certainly wasn't racing to a theater when it came out. Considering that it grossed just $6.2 million, not much of the rest of America was either.

So there you have it: The landscape of film that was 2001 is an entirely different entity when look back at it ten years later than when we were looking at the previews of those films in movie theaters the year before. That, in and of itself, says a lot about film as a moving body.

*Calendar year means films released from January to December. Many films released in December are watched by most of the public in a movie theater the following year. By 200+ films a callender year, I mean a critic watches some 200 films a year released during that year. They might also watch older movies as well.

**By film-watching community, I mean the critical community but also anyone who posts on message boards or engages in film-watching to a degree that they're the kind of person who would be reading this article