I have been watching a lot of Family Guy recently and because it is such an intelligent show, I wanted to get some opinions about the nature of the show. I googled "Family Guy essay" and the first hit was an essay submitted for a "Studies in Pop Culture class" that was posted online by a guy named Adam Cozens who identifies himself as Christian. His "Christian reading" of Family Guy wouldn't interest me because I'm not Christian myself and generally feel that Christian entertainment watchdog groups are somewhat detrimental to the entertainment industry (i.e. baseless protests over the Da Vinci Code, Dogma, and The Life of Brian and inflating support for a bad film like Passion of the Christ), but he attacks the show mostly on secular moral grounds, and I found that interesting. I do tend to agree with the author that movies and tv shows can have bad moral content and it is a concern of mine. I objected highly to Sin City, for example, on moral grounds: It just preached nihilism and celebrated violence and misplaced masculinity to excess.
His essay can be found here: www.adamcozens.com/familyguy.htm
His essay has a very interesting insight about how bad fathers on TV are a result of how baby boomers's dads had to work multiple jobs in single income households and that prompted children of the 60s to love mom and resent dad. The children of the 60s set the template for the modern family sitcom and took that resentment with them to those shows, creating multiple generations worth of loveable and affectionate TV mothers and lazy, slobby, hard-drinking, disinterested-in-their-kids dads. These stereotypes exist far more on TV than they do in real life at this point but TV is one generation behind society in this sense. The writers of these shows that feature such figures were born during that postwar suburban boom and they are writing about the nuclear family as they remember it from their roles as kids and not as parents or adults. Bernie Mac of "The Bernie Mac Show" was born in 1958, Ray Romano of "Everybody Loves Raymond" was born in 1957, and Jim Belushi of "According to Jim" and Matt Greoning of "The Simpsons" was born in 1954.
But the bulk of his essay talks about Family Guy's lack of morally redeeming value. He summarizes the show as about a "an overly obsessive daughter, a blissfully ignorant son, a beautiful submissive wife, a maniacal toddler and an arrogant, emotionally distant, and yet, still so lovable father." So, here's my response:
Family Guy's purpose is not to be morally redeeming but, rather, to entertain. It provides escape, like the author says, but it does so very intelligently, and I think there's morally redeeming value in entertainment that's intelligent. Intelligent entertainment, like art, is a work of beauty to be appreciated and has the potential to inspire.
Another way the show is morally redeeming is through positive portrayals of minorities, in Cleveland, and the handicapped, as is Joe. For a show that attacks anything and everything, the show has handled these two characters with the greatest of sensitivities.
I also think the author greatly misreads the characters. The show takes pages from pop culture and parodies them, and a parody draws focus to certain elements that ordinarily don't get focused on. The character of Meg for example, has low self-esteem about her looks and is treated with an absurd amount of apathy from her dad. He doesn't abuse her and act like a bad dad, but rather he acts like she doesn't exist: He can't remember her name and actively wants her removed from the family, at times. It's a comic method, Gerald Mast in "The Comic Mind" calls "ad absurdium": No dad would act like that in real life. A abusive dad might unintentionally say mean things to their kid which could scar them, abuse them, or neglect them, but for Peter to actively forget the daughter's existence, considering he plays an active role in the lives of his other two kids, highlights the absurdity of the situation and of the societal context in general. It's a form of parody, and so we must examine what is being parodied: Some ideas to throw around here are 1) the fact that teenage girls in the media, a class of people largely filled with girls who star on sitcoms, are so closely scrutinized about their looks. Meg is really not that much more overweight than her mom, who is considered hot, so there's a certain rediculousness to the way she's perceived by the people of Quahog. 2) the fact that sometimes child actors get written out of sitcoms (see Family Matters, Happy Days, Roseanne) and they act as if they were never part of the family. Peter's selective memory is an example of this. 3) The lazy father archetype mentioned earlier. To draw light in a satirical way to an issue like portrayal of teenage girls in the media is morally redeeming in my opinion.
In all, the show teaches us not to take things at face value. The author mentiones that Chris seems unintelligent, but that's because he talks slow and doesn't sound intelligent. He has actually said some surprisingly intelligent things. To dismiss Peter as an uncaring dad is also somewhat baseless. In the episode where he became a lobbyist, he stopped campaigning for smoking because he saw the effect on his kid, for example. He also saves Stewie from the horrors of Disney World. If anything, my complaint about Peter is that he is written inconsistently: Sometimes he's a perfectly capable father, sometimes he's virtually retarded, sometimes he's apathetic.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
"Big Bang Theory" great show but could have been written a little differently
Big Bang Theory is a great show about the unlikely mix between geeks and beauties. A beautiful young girl, Penny (Kaley Cuoco) moves in next door to a pair of advanced theoretical physicists (Johnny Galecki and Jim Parsons), who are textbook examples of geekiness. With their two friends (Simon Helberg and Kunal Nayyar), they spend much of their time playing Halo, going on second life, watching sci-fi shows and collecting comic books. One of the two roommates (Johnny Galecki from Roseanne) is in love with the girl across the hall and a great deal of the show centers around this tension between this very shy and socially-akward guy and this girl who is out of her league.
The show is very entertaining for two reasons. The first is the hilarity that results from watching these nerdy geniuses and their two friends (Simon Helberg in fish-out-of-water situations where they are forced to interact with normal people (mainly in the form of Penny). Second, is the endearing and unlikely nature of the budding chemistry that develops between Penny and Sheldon. It might be a lost cause for him, but we're happy just to see sparks fly in the meantime.
One problem with the show, however, is that Penny spends an awful lot of time hanging around with Sheldon and his three friends when she has little in common with them in the first place. I understand that Sheldon is such a nice guy underneath with a desire to be sociable that she might form a friendship with them, but of the remaining three characters: Raj is too shy to speak when he's around her, Leonard is hostile and Wolfowitz is creepy. The writers construct situations where Penny is interacting with the "gang" instead of just Sheldon because that way she's not dating him yet and it keeps the sexual tension flowing, but how many situations can the writers construct before the "they're neighbors" excuse doesn't cut it anymore. This is especially true when she's actively annoyed with some of them (an example is when Leonard actively snuck into her apartment and cleaned her room). Sometimes, there are valid excuses that can make the interactions seem more plausible, like she's dropping off their mail or there's an episode where they're invited to her party.
Essentially what many unlikely storybook romances need, in both the movies and in real life, is for characters who wouldn't normally associate with each other to be stuck in some sort of confined situation where they have to do so. This reminds me of a film theory called the "Grand Hotel" or "Ship of Fools" theory that says when characters from different societal classes are forced to spend time in a confined space, they become a microcosm of society. If Leonard and Sheldon and Penny had daily schedules that forced them to unknowingly spend a lot of time with each other, step outside of their comfort spheres, and realize that the other wasn't so bad, I think that would be a great concept for a show.
What if the show was set in the physics lab where Sheldon and Leonard work?
If the show took place at their university and Penny was hired as a seceretary or clerk, all of their physics jokes would seem more natural since they'd be forced to talk more physics around her anyway. All the interactions would still be there but they'd also be more natural if she was spending what I currently see as excessive time with the gang of four.
The show is very entertaining for two reasons. The first is the hilarity that results from watching these nerdy geniuses and their two friends (Simon Helberg in fish-out-of-water situations where they are forced to interact with normal people (mainly in the form of Penny). Second, is the endearing and unlikely nature of the budding chemistry that develops between Penny and Sheldon. It might be a lost cause for him, but we're happy just to see sparks fly in the meantime.
One problem with the show, however, is that Penny spends an awful lot of time hanging around with Sheldon and his three friends when she has little in common with them in the first place. I understand that Sheldon is such a nice guy underneath with a desire to be sociable that she might form a friendship with them, but of the remaining three characters: Raj is too shy to speak when he's around her, Leonard is hostile and Wolfowitz is creepy. The writers construct situations where Penny is interacting with the "gang" instead of just Sheldon because that way she's not dating him yet and it keeps the sexual tension flowing, but how many situations can the writers construct before the "they're neighbors" excuse doesn't cut it anymore. This is especially true when she's actively annoyed with some of them (an example is when Leonard actively snuck into her apartment and cleaned her room). Sometimes, there are valid excuses that can make the interactions seem more plausible, like she's dropping off their mail or there's an episode where they're invited to her party.
Essentially what many unlikely storybook romances need, in both the movies and in real life, is for characters who wouldn't normally associate with each other to be stuck in some sort of confined situation where they have to do so. This reminds me of a film theory called the "Grand Hotel" or "Ship of Fools" theory that says when characters from different societal classes are forced to spend time in a confined space, they become a microcosm of society. If Leonard and Sheldon and Penny had daily schedules that forced them to unknowingly spend a lot of time with each other, step outside of their comfort spheres, and realize that the other wasn't so bad, I think that would be a great concept for a show.
What if the show was set in the physics lab where Sheldon and Leonard work?
If the show took place at their university and Penny was hired as a seceretary or clerk, all of their physics jokes would seem more natural since they'd be forced to talk more physics around her anyway. All the interactions would still be there but they'd also be more natural if she was spending what I currently see as excessive time with the gang of four.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Blindness (2008) review
Mark Ruffalo, Julianne Moore, and Gabriel Garcia Bernall star in a
Dystopian sci-fi thriller of sorts that takes place in an unnamed (and
unfamiliar looking) that doesn't seem so far removed from us in what
appears to be the not-too-distant future. When an epidemic causes
people to suddenly go blind, the police place the first wave of victims
in a quarantine with limited resources and as the prison guards become
less visible for some unknown reason (the film brilliantly provides us
only with the point-of-view of the people inside the prison), anarchy
develops from which separate wards engage in a struggle over food.
"Blindness" is Brazillian wunderkind Fernando Meirelles' second
English-language film after breaking out to North American audiences
with his Oscar-nominated gang epic "City of God," and while it lacks
the frantic pace of "God" or "Constant Gardener," the rawness and
visual intensity of Meirelles' previous works is still on screen. The
film's epilogue runs a little long and the pacing is a little slow, but
it's thought-provoking and has a unique voice.
One might compare it to Children of Men or No Country for Old Men in its lack of interest in character development in any conventional sense. If there is any prologue before the action sinks in, it's of very little use. The characters are defined mostly by action when confronted against a seemingly unstoppable force (in Children of Men, it's a mob, in No Country for Old Men, it's a seemingly invincible man, and in Blindness, it's a natural epidemic). However, I sensed a richness to Blindness that I didn't sense in Children of Men or No Country for Old Men (even though those were Oscar-nominated and Oscar-winning films and this got bashed review wise) in that the situations the characters were placed in made for a compelling morality play as well.
I saw a sort of first-world/third-world metaphor with Ward 3 and Ward 1. Ward 3 had superior firepower (the gun) so they were able to control the resources and subjugate the other wards, much like Europe was able to do with South America, Africa, and the rest of the world. There were many other takes on the film that my friends had as we had a sort of discussion afterwards. I never saw Children of Men or No Country for Old Men having that kind of potential (although NCfOM came closer). Blindness had a clear aim to be about something more than the immediate action at hand.
Dystopian sci-fi thriller of sorts that takes place in an unnamed (and
unfamiliar looking) that doesn't seem so far removed from us in what
appears to be the not-too-distant future. When an epidemic causes
people to suddenly go blind, the police place the first wave of victims
in a quarantine with limited resources and as the prison guards become
less visible for some unknown reason (the film brilliantly provides us
only with the point-of-view of the people inside the prison), anarchy
develops from which separate wards engage in a struggle over food.
"Blindness" is Brazillian wunderkind Fernando Meirelles' second
English-language film after breaking out to North American audiences
with his Oscar-nominated gang epic "City of God," and while it lacks
the frantic pace of "God" or "Constant Gardener," the rawness and
visual intensity of Meirelles' previous works is still on screen. The
film's epilogue runs a little long and the pacing is a little slow, but
it's thought-provoking and has a unique voice.
One might compare it to Children of Men or No Country for Old Men in its lack of interest in character development in any conventional sense. If there is any prologue before the action sinks in, it's of very little use. The characters are defined mostly by action when confronted against a seemingly unstoppable force (in Children of Men, it's a mob, in No Country for Old Men, it's a seemingly invincible man, and in Blindness, it's a natural epidemic). However, I sensed a richness to Blindness that I didn't sense in Children of Men or No Country for Old Men (even though those were Oscar-nominated and Oscar-winning films and this got bashed review wise) in that the situations the characters were placed in made for a compelling morality play as well.
I saw a sort of first-world/third-world metaphor with Ward 3 and Ward 1. Ward 3 had superior firepower (the gun) so they were able to control the resources and subjugate the other wards, much like Europe was able to do with South America, Africa, and the rest of the world. There were many other takes on the film that my friends had as we had a sort of discussion afterwards. I never saw Children of Men or No Country for Old Men having that kind of potential (although NCfOM came closer). Blindness had a clear aim to be about something more than the immediate action at hand.
Monday, October 06, 2008
What a godawful weekend at the box office....
If you read any newspaper's weekend section, you would have seen reviews for Nick and Nora's Playlist, Religulous and Blindness and Beverly Hills Chihuaha was most likely relegated to the "Also Playing" section, because it didn't seem particularly noteworthy. Besides, you already pretty much know it's for the same crowd who finds those 30-second spots for Taco Bell amusing and figures that seeing a talking chihuaha on screen for a couple hours is a little safer than the 3 aforementioned films of Ed Harris' critically acclaimed Appaloosa, and there's not much to explain in the story.
Well, mediocrity wins again for a 3rd straight weekend: Previous box office champs have been Eagle Eye and Lakeview Terrace, neither of which have been appealling.
One notable thing about this weekend's winner is that it was directed by Raja Gosnell who Richard Roeper cited in his book "Hollywood Schlock" as one of the worst directors in America, and although Roeper is just one person, I'm moderately inclined to agree with him. Unless you found the Scooby Doo series to be successful, than anyone looking at his imdb profile could easily see he's produced bad movies all over the place. Roeper also notes in that same book that bad directors have the edge over good directors that they're name isn't attached to films. If a good or great director like Ron Howard (example of a good director) or Fernando Meirelles (example of a great director) makes a film, whether good, bad or slightly dissapointing, than people will remember it because their name is always marketed with the film. The fact that Raja Gosnell is nothing to be proud of means he has immunity and he can continue to go on and make awful movies.
Raja Gosnell who Richard Roeper lists as one of the handful of
1 N Beverly Hills Chihuahua BV $29,000,000 - 3,215 - $9,020 $29,000,000 - 1
2 1 Eagle Eye P/DW $17,700,000 -39.3% 3,516 +6 $5,034 $54,605,000 $80 2
3 N Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist Sony $12,000,000 - 2,421 - $4,957 $12,000,000 - 1
4 2 Nights in Rodanthe WB $7,355,000 -45.2% 2,702 -2 $2,722 $25,075,000 - 2
5 37 Appaloosa WB (NL) $5,015,000 +3,321.6% 1,045 +1,031 $4,799 $5,570,000 $20 3
6 3 Lakeview Terrace SGem $4,500,000 -35.4% 2,574 +107 $1,748 $32,140,000 $20 3
7 5 Burn After Reading Focus $4,083,000 -34.1% 2,397 -252 $1,703 $51,641,000 $37 4
8 4 Fireproof Gold. $4,069,000 -40.5% 852 +13 $4,776 $12,491,000 $0.5 2
9 N An American Carol Viv. $3,810,000 - 1,639 - $2,325 $3,810,000 $20 1
10 N Religulous LGF $3,500,000 - 502 - $6,972 $3,519,000 - 1
11 N Flash of Genius Uni. $2,328,000 - 1,098 - $2,120 $2,328,000 - 1
12 N Blindness Mira. $2,002,000 - 1,690 - $1,185 $2,002,000 - 1
Well, mediocrity wins again for a 3rd straight weekend: Previous box office champs have been Eagle Eye and Lakeview Terrace, neither of which have been appealling.
One notable thing about this weekend's winner is that it was directed by Raja Gosnell who Richard Roeper cited in his book "Hollywood Schlock" as one of the worst directors in America, and although Roeper is just one person, I'm moderately inclined to agree with him. Unless you found the Scooby Doo series to be successful, than anyone looking at his imdb profile could easily see he's produced bad movies all over the place. Roeper also notes in that same book that bad directors have the edge over good directors that they're name isn't attached to films. If a good or great director like Ron Howard (example of a good director) or Fernando Meirelles (example of a great director) makes a film, whether good, bad or slightly dissapointing, than people will remember it because their name is always marketed with the film. The fact that Raja Gosnell is nothing to be proud of means he has immunity and he can continue to go on and make awful movies.
Raja Gosnell who Richard Roeper lists as one of the handful of
1 N Beverly Hills Chihuahua BV $29,000,000 - 3,215 - $9,020 $29,000,000 - 1
2 1 Eagle Eye P/DW $17,700,000 -39.3% 3,516 +6 $5,034 $54,605,000 $80 2
3 N Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist Sony $12,000,000 - 2,421 - $4,957 $12,000,000 - 1
4 2 Nights in Rodanthe WB $7,355,000 -45.2% 2,702 -2 $2,722 $25,075,000 - 2
5 37 Appaloosa WB (NL) $5,015,000 +3,321.6% 1,045 +1,031 $4,799 $5,570,000 $20 3
6 3 Lakeview Terrace SGem $4,500,000 -35.4% 2,574 +107 $1,748 $32,140,000 $20 3
7 5 Burn After Reading Focus $4,083,000 -34.1% 2,397 -252 $1,703 $51,641,000 $37 4
8 4 Fireproof Gold. $4,069,000 -40.5% 852 +13 $4,776 $12,491,000 $0.5 2
9 N An American Carol Viv. $3,810,000 - 1,639 - $2,325 $3,810,000 $20 1
10 N Religulous LGF $3,500,000 - 502 - $6,972 $3,519,000 - 1
11 N Flash of Genius Uni. $2,328,000 - 1,098 - $2,120 $2,328,000 - 1
12 N Blindness Mira. $2,002,000 - 1,690 - $1,185 $2,002,000 - 1
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Actors in 3 or more nominated films this decade
Here's a brand new random list:Actors and how many films they've been in, specific to this decade.
Requirements are:
-Must be in a minimum of 3 oscar-nominated films.
-By nomination, we mean best picture
-One of those Oscar-nominated films must have been in the 00's.
You might find some surprising names here like Allison Janey or Christopher Plummer. I didn't have time to look up every extra in all three LOTR's.
Jack Nicholson-10-Five Easy Pieces, Chinatown, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Reds, Terms of Endearmant, Prizzi’s Honor, Broadcast News, A Few Good Men, As Good as it Gets, Departed
Dustin Hoffman-8-The Graduate, Midnight Cowboy, Lenny, All the President’s Men, Kramer vs Kramer, Tootsie, Rain Man, Finding Neverland
Al Pacino-6-Godfather, Godfather II, Dog Day Afternoon, Godfather III, Scent of a Woman, The Insider
Daniel Day-Lewis-6-Ghandi, Room with a View, My Left Foot, In the Name of the Father, Gangs of New York, There Will be Blood
Tom Wilkinson-6-In the Name of the Father, Sense and Sensibility, Full Monty, Shakespeare in Love, In the Bedroom, Michael Clayton
Cate Blanchett-6-Elizabeth, LOTR 1-3, The Aviator,
Meryl Streep-5-Julia, Deer Hunter, Kramer vs Kramer, Out of Africa, Tootsie
Tommy Lee Jones-5-Love Story, Coal Miner’s Daughter, JFK, The Fugitive, No Country for Old Men
Willhem Defoe-5-Mississippi Burning, Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, English Patient, The Aviator
Russell Crowe-5-LA Confidential, The Insider, Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, Master and Commander
John C Reilley-5-Thin Red Line, Chicago, Gangs of
Christopher Lee-5-Hamlet, Moulin Rouge, Lord of the Rings I-III
Tom Hanks-4-Forrest Gump, Apollo 13, Saving Private Ryan, Green Mile
Morgan Freeman-4-Driving Miss Daisy, Unforgiven, Shawshank Redemption, Million Dollar Baby
Jim Broadbent-4-In the Name of the Father, Bullets over Broadway, Moulan Rouge, Gangs of
Kelly McDonald-4-Elizabeth,
Geoffery Rush-4-Shine,
Ian Holm-4-Chariots of Fire, Lord of the Rings I, Lord of the Rings III, The Aviator
Sissy Spaceck-4-Coal Miner’s Daughter, The Missing, JFK, In the Bedroom
Julie Christie-4-Dr. Zhivago, Darling, Heaven Can Wait, Finding Neverland
Vanessa Redgrave-4-A Man for All Seasons, Julia, Room with a View, Atonement
Kevin Bacon-4-JFK, A Few Good Men, Apollo 13,
Leonardo DiCaprio-4-Titanic, Gangs of
James Cromwell-4-Babe, LA Confidential, Green Mile, The Queen
Ed Harris-4-Right Stuff, Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind, The Hours
Julie Christie-4-Doctor Zhivago, Darling, Heaven Can Wait, Finding Neverland
Matt Damon-4-Field of Dreams, Good Will Hunting, Saving Private Ryan, Departed
John Rhys-Davies-4-Raiders of the Lost
Chris Cooper-3-American Beauty, Seabiscuit, Capote
Allison Janey-3-American Beauty, The Hours, Juno
Toni Collette-3-Sixth Sense, The Hours, Little Miss Sunshine
Alec Baldwin-3-Working Girl, The Aviator, Departed
Albert Finney-3-Tom Jones, Erin Brockovitch, Traffic
Chris Cooper-3-American Beauty, Seabiscuit, Capote
Michael Pena-3-Million Dollar Baby, Crash,
Judi Dench-3-Room with a View, Shakespeare in Love, Chocolat
George Clooney-3-Thin Red Line, Good Night and Good Luck, Michael Clayton
Beth Grant-3-Rain Man, Little Miss Sunshine, No Country for Old Men
Martin Sheen-3-Apocolypse Now, JFK, The Departed
Sean Penn-3-Dead Man Walking, Thin Red Line,
Kate Winslet-3-Sense and Sensibility, Titanic, Finding Neverland
Sean Astin-3-LOTR I-III
Elijah Wood-3-LOTR I-III
Virgo Mortgensen-3-LOTR I-III
Ian McKellan-3-LOTR I-III
Maggie Smith-3-California Suite, Room with a View,
Christopher Plummer-3-Sound of Music, The Insider, A Beautiful Mind
Richard Harris-3-Guns of Navarrone, Unforgiven, Gladiator
Monday, September 29, 2008
Straight Man/Funny Man Dichotomy
I once took a college course for 3 relatively easy credits called "Film Comedy" and there was a very revealing quote in our textbook explaining the straight man-funny man dichotomy: "Comedy is something funny in a non-funny situation or something non-funny in a funny situation."
If my friends have traditionally thought of me as goofy and are expecting that and I were to walk into the room with a suit and tie and shake their hands in a business-like manner, they would find it funny. When Andy Kaufman did strikingly ordinary things on stage, people found it funny because they were expecting non-funny. This is where the funny man/straight man dichotomy comes from: Encapsulating the entirety of the humor about a situation into one character and everything else into the other allows one to have the base of reality from which funny will seem most evident by contrast.
Some shows like Perfect Strangers, Fresh Prince of Bel Air, or Family Matters has one (or two) funny men and everyone else is normal. The Office employs straight man-funny man humor tremendously: think of how Michael, the funny man, says something awkward and the rest of the office, playing the role of the straight man goes silent.
30 Rock is an example of the opposite: Jack is highly businesslike. He dresses in a suit and tie and often says things a businessman is supposed to say in the tone a businessman would say it. At the same time, he'll occasionally catch you off-guard by saying something bizarre occasionally. In that sense, he encapsulates both straight and funnyman qualities: Everything about his demeanor is representative of the straight man, while his occasional bit of bizarreness is the funny contrast. It works very well, because there are clearly delineated boundaries between the two. On the other hand, some shows like Wings or Cheers or Seinfeld, everyone's a little off kilter with they're one funny personality trait. On Wings, for example, Faye is a little absent-minded, Roy is a little greedy and Antonio is a little lonely. These traits only provide comedy because Faye is surrounded by level-headed people, Roy is surrounded by mostly moral people, and Antonio is surrounded by people with a healthy differentiation between friendship and people they hang out with at work.
There are also some shows in which the straight-man/funny-man phenomenon gets deliciously skewed:
1. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia has straight men and funny men at first but the straight men eventually go funny. Someone enters the world of these narcissistic people (Dee, Frank, the 3 guys) as an outsider to their narcissism (i.e. the priest who was in love with Dee, the unnamed waitress) but they get caught up in their narcissism and get turned inside out in their interactions with the group
2. Newsradio and Arrested Development: On the surface, there's one straight guy-Michael Bluth and Dave Foley's character-but they end up showing just a hint of narcissism or pettiness here or there and as time goes on and they become more bonded to the group, they're negative traits become drawn out more to the point that there's no longer a straight man
3. Family Matters-Originally, the family is normal and the neighbor next door is off-kilter but as they end up bonding, it seems as if Steve Urkel might be the normal one, and someone like Carl, with his outbursts, might be the off-kilter one. This show was broadcast at the height of TGIF, so the comedy had a layer of forced sentimentality to it as well.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Melvin and Howard (1980) Review
The actual story the film is based on: In 1968, four years before reclusive billionaire Howard Hughes died, he was reported to have had an encounter with a good-natured blue collar worker, Howard Dummar. Dummar picked up Hughes when he was stranded on the side of a Las Vegas road and gave him a ride to Las Vegas. When Hughes died,he bequeathed money to Dummar as a reward for his good deed. Unfortunately, Hughes' estate and the Nevada courts found Hughes' story too unbelievable to be true and Dummar never got the money.
The movie itself is well-intentioned and it truly has interesting characters. An actor I've never heard of before in my life, Paul Le Mat, plays Dumar with an innocent "aw shucks" attitude that endears him to the audience and strengthens our opinion of him as the rightful heir. He lets himself get easily seduced by an older female customer when he's delivering milk and when the woman who turns out to be his second wife makes suggestive innuendo at him, he says in a flabbergasted tone "Bonnie, aren't you a Mormon girl?"
His first wife Linda, who was the focus of my attention on this film based on the fact that the only thing I knew about the film was that it was Mary Steenburgen's Academy-award winning role, was also an interesting character: underneath the guise of her provocative clothing and desire to be a dancer (be it exotic or tap), she's equally innocent and oblivious to the world around her.
Except for the one scene in which Bonnie seduces Howard, she's woefully underdeveloped and there's very little reason to be happy to see her and Howard at the end of the film together. The film wants us to feel that the tragedy that is hitting Howard is hitting Bonnie' as well, since she's his wife. Because of the way marriages were coming and going in Howard's life and the initial chemistry between Linda and Howard, I was kind of hoping that Bonnie was just a temporary road stop en route back to Linda. Never mind that in REAL LIFE, Howard and Linda didn't get back together, the story never made me see Bonnie as anything more than some impulsive farmgirl in need of a man. The chemistry or story arc between the two needed to be strengthened up front.
Another woefully underdeveloped relationship was that between Melvin and Howard which is what someone might get the impression the film is about, considering it's the title of the film. The story, or the most interesting part of it, was all about Melvin's inheritance of Howard's money, and that only came back in the last 20 minutes of the film as a sort of epilogue to the story of Melvin's unsuccessful marriage to Linda. Some reviews said that the story was about the myth American dream of the American dream unearthed as Melvin's story was a backwards version of Howard's story. To me, however, it seemed like there needed to be at least some allusion to Howard Hughes- a reminder that he was in the story in any capacity at all - between the first ten minutes and the last twenty.
While I understand the film is a classic, to me, the film never really knew what it was about: A man's failed on-again off-again marriage, an almost complete portrait of a man who would go on to become a footnote in history, or the story of a man's controversial claim to inheritance.
The movie itself is well-intentioned and it truly has interesting characters. An actor I've never heard of before in my life, Paul Le Mat, plays Dumar with an innocent "aw shucks" attitude that endears him to the audience and strengthens our opinion of him as the rightful heir. He lets himself get easily seduced by an older female customer when he's delivering milk and when the woman who turns out to be his second wife makes suggestive innuendo at him, he says in a flabbergasted tone "Bonnie, aren't you a Mormon girl?"
His first wife Linda, who was the focus of my attention on this film based on the fact that the only thing I knew about the film was that it was Mary Steenburgen's Academy-award winning role, was also an interesting character: underneath the guise of her provocative clothing and desire to be a dancer (be it exotic or tap), she's equally innocent and oblivious to the world around her.
Except for the one scene in which Bonnie seduces Howard, she's woefully underdeveloped and there's very little reason to be happy to see her and Howard at the end of the film together. The film wants us to feel that the tragedy that is hitting Howard is hitting Bonnie' as well, since she's his wife. Because of the way marriages were coming and going in Howard's life and the initial chemistry between Linda and Howard, I was kind of hoping that Bonnie was just a temporary road stop en route back to Linda. Never mind that in REAL LIFE, Howard and Linda didn't get back together, the story never made me see Bonnie as anything more than some impulsive farmgirl in need of a man. The chemistry or story arc between the two needed to be strengthened up front.
Another woefully underdeveloped relationship was that between Melvin and Howard which is what someone might get the impression the film is about, considering it's the title of the film. The story, or the most interesting part of it, was all about Melvin's inheritance of Howard's money, and that only came back in the last 20 minutes of the film as a sort of epilogue to the story of Melvin's unsuccessful marriage to Linda. Some reviews said that the story was about the myth American dream of the American dream unearthed as Melvin's story was a backwards version of Howard's story. To me, however, it seemed like there needed to be at least some allusion to Howard Hughes- a reminder that he was in the story in any capacity at all - between the first ten minutes and the last twenty.
While I understand the film is a classic, to me, the film never really knew what it was about: A man's failed on-again off-again marriage, an almost complete portrait of a man who would go on to become a footnote in history, or the story of a man's controversial claim to inheritance.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Japanese Game Show imports
I remember when I first saw a link to "Japanese Tetris" where various contestants try to fit through various shapes or risk landing in a pool of urine (according to this source, it is urine they land into http://www.cracked.com/article_15804_p2.html), I thought it was a pretty cool idea for a show and judging by how popular these clips were.
So when they decided to build an American game show out of this Japanese game show, in Fox's new game show "Hole in the Wall," why is it all of a sudden pegged as one of this Fall TV season's most likely failures?
Well, in truth, even though the American version is mostly the same as the Japanese version, there is a slight difference: The Japanese videos are exotic. They're doing something completely out of the ordinary and they're also acting in ways that seem unusual to us. The Japanese participants are being slapped around and falling into vats of urine and are still laughing and having a good time which is somewhat odd. Wierd music is playing in the background and of course, everyone is speaking in a language you don't understand. This enables you to use your imagination a little bit to figure out what everyone is talking about.
When you Americanize it, you take away the mysteriousness of this outside culture. You also feel the fakeness of the whole thing. Sportscasters are giving commentary on what's taking place as if this is a sport that's been around as long as baseball, when in fact, only 24 Americans have played this game in history (4 episodes of 6 contestants each). The contestants on the Japanese shows play the game as if they're taking it seriously and because the average American doesn't know much about Japanese culture, for all we know, this is as much a part of the Japanese way of life as Samurais, origami, and bullet trains are. Therefore we think we're peering into Japanese culture. In America, there's now cultural foundation for this game, the contestants' enthusiasm is not an enthusiam for this game....they just want to make money and the only reason they want to make money through squeezing themselves through enroaching shapes is because that's the avenue laid out for them by American TV executives hoping to artificially create a cultural phenomeon by cashing in on a Japanese trend. It's all too transparent.
So in this case, the exoticness makes all the difference
So when they decided to build an American game show out of this Japanese game show, in Fox's new game show "Hole in the Wall," why is it all of a sudden pegged as one of this Fall TV season's most likely failures?
Well, in truth, even though the American version is mostly the same as the Japanese version, there is a slight difference: The Japanese videos are exotic. They're doing something completely out of the ordinary and they're also acting in ways that seem unusual to us. The Japanese participants are being slapped around and falling into vats of urine and are still laughing and having a good time which is somewhat odd. Wierd music is playing in the background and of course, everyone is speaking in a language you don't understand. This enables you to use your imagination a little bit to figure out what everyone is talking about.
When you Americanize it, you take away the mysteriousness of this outside culture. You also feel the fakeness of the whole thing. Sportscasters are giving commentary on what's taking place as if this is a sport that's been around as long as baseball, when in fact, only 24 Americans have played this game in history (4 episodes of 6 contestants each). The contestants on the Japanese shows play the game as if they're taking it seriously and because the average American doesn't know much about Japanese culture, for all we know, this is as much a part of the Japanese way of life as Samurais, origami, and bullet trains are. Therefore we think we're peering into Japanese culture. In America, there's now cultural foundation for this game, the contestants' enthusiasm is not an enthusiam for this game....they just want to make money and the only reason they want to make money through squeezing themselves through enroaching shapes is because that's the avenue laid out for them by American TV executives hoping to artificially create a cultural phenomeon by cashing in on a Japanese trend. It's all too transparent.
So in this case, the exoticness makes all the difference
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)