Keyser Söze is the Sled

mark hedges on america's corporate culture

2009-06-29T16:31:00.005-04:00

I highly recommend reading the article "The Truth Alone Will Not Set You Free" by Mark Hedges, regarding the destruction and replacement of American culture with mass, corporate culture ("junk culture") and the repercussions of this shift. Below are some highlights.

The most important struggle will be to wrest the organs of communication from corporations that use mass media to demonize movements of social change and empower proto-fascist movements such as the Christian right.

American culture—or cultures, for we once had distinct regional cultures—was systematically destroyed in the 20th century by corporations. These corporations used mass communication, as well as an understanding of the human subconscious, to turn consumption into an inner compulsion. Old values of thrift, regional identity that had its own iconography, aesthetic expression and history, diverse immigrant traditions, self-sufficiency, a press that was decentralized to provide citizens with a voice in their communities were all destroyed to create mass, corporate culture. New desires and habits were implanted by corporate advertisers to replace the old. Individual frustrations and discontents could be solved, corporate culture assured us, through the wonders of consumerism and cultural homogenization. American culture, or cultures, was replaced with junk culture and junk politics. And now, standing on the ash heap, we survey the ruins. The very slogans of advertising and mass culture have become the idiom of common expression, robbing us of the language to make sense of the destruction. We confuse the manufactured commodity culture with American culture.

The emergence of corporate and government public relations, which drew on the studies of mass psychology by Sigmund Freud and others after World War I, found its bible in Walter Lippmann’s book “Public Opinion,” a manual for the power elite’s shaping of popular sentiments. Lippmann argued that the key to leadership in the modern age would depend on the ability to manipulate “symbols which assemble emotions after they have been detached from their ideas.” The public mind could be mastered, he wrote, through an “intensification of feeling and a degradation of significance.”

The modern world, as Kafka predicted, has become a world where the irrational has become rational, where lies become true. And facts alone will be powerless to thwart the mendacity spun out through billions of dollars in corporate advertising, lobbying and control of traditional sources of information. We will have to descend into the world of the forgotten, to write, photograph, paint, sing, act, blog, video and film with anger and honesty that have been blunted by the parameters of traditional journalism.

“Read ‘The Gettysburg Address,’ ” [Stuart] Ewen [author of “Captains of Consciousness: Advertising and the Social Roots of the Consumer Culture” and “PR: A Social History of Spin”] said. “Read Frederick Douglass’ autobiography or his newspaper. Read ‘The Communist Manifesto.’ Read Darwin’s ‘Descent of Man.’ All of these things are filled with an understanding that communicating ideas and producing forms of public communication that empower people, rather than disempowering people, relies on an integrated understanding of who the public is and what it might be. We have a lot to learn from the history of rhetoric. We need to think about where we are going. We need to think about what 21st century pamphleteering might be. We need to think about the ways in which the rediscovery of rhetoric—not lying, but rhetoric in its more conventional sense—can affect what we do.

conan o'brien: triumph visits bonnaroo

2009-06-29T13:00:00.000-04:00

michael jackson

2009-06-25T23:33:00.003-04:00

Michael Jackson, August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009

epic win: buffy vs. edward, "what? are you twelve?"

2009-06-21T22:33:00.006-04:00

From Jonathan McIntosh of Rebellious Pixels comes this brilliantly edited pop culture piece. He says of his work:

In this remixed narrative Edward Cullen from the Twilight series meets Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It’s an example of transformative storytelling serving as a visual critique of Edward’s character and generally creepy behavior. Seen through Buffy’s eyes some of the more patriarchal gender roles and sexist Hollywood tropes embedded in the Twilight saga are exposed in hilarious ways.

A-to the-men. I will never, ever forgive Twilight author Stephanie Meyer for describing her whiney, helpless, and devotionally dependent protagonist (who she mistakenly refers to as a heroine -- not the same thing) to the greatest literary heroine readers have ever known, Elizabeth Bennett. If anything, the video above just proves how progressive Joss Whedon has been with his heroines, and how Twilight has set women back centuries.

john hodgman: revenge of the nerds

2009-06-21T09:04:00.000-04:00

Via Throwing Things: John Hodgman was the keynote speaker at the Radio & TV Correspondents' Dinner, where his primary topic was that of bridging the gap between nerds and jocks. Whereas the previous presidency was made up of jocks, our new presidency is comprised of nerds. Hodgman described our president -- "with a Spock-ish calm and gangly frame" -- as the man who is bringing an emphasis on science and objective reality back into our nation. He adds, "There is even talk of some states decriminalizing evolution."

At the 8:25 mark, Hodgman questions the president's "nerd credentials" through a series of slides, and at the 9:29 mark, Obama throws up the Vulcan salute without hesitation.

trailers: 2012, cold souls

2009-06-19T18:03:00.000-04:00

film news: june 2009

2009-06-16T15:57:00.007-04:00

• Cinematical has this to say about the upcoming Cold Souls, which has perhaps one of the creepier posters I've seen in a while: "Paul Giamatti [stars] as an actor (appropriately named Paul Giamatti) who decides he wants to put some of his soul in storage in order to help better tackle a new role. [...] Cold Souls is a beautifully shot film, and it also becomes more than a little bit moving, as Giamatti struggles with a question we've all asked ourselves: Is it possible to remove the burden of our soul without taking away the benefit of it? Is it the very weight we struggle under that makes us strong? Deep questions, but Cold Souls is also funny; there are fast, laugh-out-loud gags like Giamatti's compensation anxiety over the small size of his extracted soul ("It looks like a chickpea!") or the Russian trophy wife obsessed with getting an American actor's extracted soul so she can implant it and do better Soap Opera work."

• Tim Burton's artwork will be featured at MoMA. The show will include more than 700 pieces: paintings, drawings, storyboards, maquettes, puppets and other work created or designed by Burton.

• I Watch Stuff has the poster for Ice Age 3 and makes a notable observation: the squirrel character's face is very phallic (twig and berries and all) as he ogles the eyelash-batting female squirrel. Now if only this poster were in 3D...

• Via The Movie Blog, Natalie Portman has joined Darren Aronofsky's film Black Swan, about "a veteran ballerina (Portman) who finds herself locked in a competitive situation with a rival dancer, with the stakes and twists increasing as the dancers approach a big performance. But it’s unclear whether the rival is a supernatural apparition or if the protagonist is simply having delusions."

• Cinematical's James Rocchi has a positive Sundance review of Moon, the "smart science fiction" thriller starring Sam Rockwell.

• While we're on the topic of science fiction, here's an awesome timeline by Dan Meth detailing when the movies were made (to the left of the vertical line) and how far into the future they take place (to the right of the vertical line). Click to enlarge.

• Surprise, surprise. The Hangover is getting a sequel. Why should Hollywood have any original ideas when they can capitalize off a previous success? It seems like any box office success will automatically get a sequel.

• Speaking of remakes, Film School Rejects lists 20 films from the 80s that aren't being remade. Hallelujah.

• Here's a current debate regarding female protagonists in films: Cinematical responds to Linda Holmes' request for better female leads. Holmes begs Pixar to have a female lead that isn't a princess, and Monika Bartyzel at Cinematical begs people to realize that this isn't a political issue. Holmes makes the case that "little Russell, in Up, is Asian-American, right? And that's not a big plot point; presumably, he just is because there's no particular reason he shouldn't be. You don't need him to be, but you don't need him not to be, either. It's not politics; it's just seeing the whole big world." Bartyzel agrees: "Look, women aren't flukes. We love, we hate, we learn, we fight. We go to movies. We want diversity in our interests just like everyone else. We want to see films with females in the lead roles where the characterization isn't seeped in cliche. [...] And we'd like to express our desires without having it fall into a political discussion, without our reasonable desire thrown off as a feminist rant or bit of political correctness."

• Ian McKellen, Andy Serkis, and Hugo Weaving are all confirmed for Guillermo del Toro's The Hobbit.

• Filmoculous sent me to Hunch.com with the question, "Which sci-fi movie should I watch?" The method of finding a suggestion is quite entertaining.

• And lastly, URLesque has a list of the 10 best recut movie trailers, including When Harry Met Sally and Amelie as horror films, the latter of which is really fantastic ("You can run. She doesn't have to."). Of course, they've included my favorite recut trailer: Sleepless in Seattle as a thriller about an obsessive stalker -- which actually isn't too far from the truth.

trailer: time traveler's wife

2009-06-13T01:53:00.000-04:00

my milk toof, by inhae

2009-06-11T08:10:00.000-04:00

Thanks to my friend Jen for passing along quite possibly the cutest website I've ever been to. MY MILK TOOF, by artist Inhae, is a photographic journey of two teeth, Ickle and Lardee, on various adventures (from bathing to playing to going out for a walk). Below is one of the sweeter stories, and the photography is really quite stunning (once you look past the subject matter -- although, in my opinion, the "teef" only elevate the photographs). Look, for example, at Ickle and Lardee with dandelions, Ickle and Lardee looking at the world through 3D-colored glasses, or Lardee's hesitation to bathe. Another particularly well photographed story is of a mellow afternoon; the colors are absolutely beautiful.

"Awww, Planty looks sad."

"Be right back."

"Okay Planty, here's Lardee's prescription for feeling down..."

"One:"

"A warm milk tea with lots of sugar, just the way Lardee like."

"Two:"

"A warm snuggle with Lardee's soft blanket."

"And three:"

"Fa-la-la-la-la-la...
Lardee sings for you."

"Feel better, Planty."

if the teacher pops a test, i know i'm in a mess...

2009-06-09T14:03:00.006-04:00

Oh. Em. Gee. Mark-Paul Gosselaar appeared on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon as 90s icon Zack Morris. (The acid wash jeans! The white high top sneakers! THAT HAIR!) For years and years, MPG has refused to talk about his Saved by the Bell days -- understandably so, as he was making the transition into other projects (he's currently on TNT's Raising the Bar) -- but, because of Jimmy Fallon's obsession with reuniting the cast of Saved by the Bell, MPG sucked up his pride and took us on a nostalgic journey of utter awesomeness. There are references galore -- Kelly's romance with Jeff! Drug abusing Johnny Dakota! And of course, the Zack Morris phone makes an appearance. And to top it all off, MPG joins the band for a rendition of Zack Attack's "Friends Forever."

The only thing missing was a reference to Jessie Spano's "I'm so excited, I'm so... so... scared" moment. So to make up for it, here's a link to a shirt making that reference.

I think my heart exploded from too much awesome.

Update, 06/11: Star Pulse has an interview with Mark-Paul Gosselaar regarding his frak-tastic stint on Late Night. Topics discussed include MPG forgetting about the move from Indiana to California (from Good Morning, Miss Bliss to Saved by the Bell, respectively); MPG analogizing that Jimmy Fallon's reunion idea is like putting a gun to the cast members' heads (they have to do it now that everyone wants it); and, in a moment of humility, MPG confesses he was nervous during the live broadcast. Aww, TIME IN!

review: up

2009-06-02T08:13:00.001-04:00

Three things to note before I begin my review: (1) Most importantly, I will be discussing the film in full, including spoilers and ruining surprises in the film, so continue reading at your own risk. Or come back and read it after you've seen the movie. (2) Many critics in the blogosphere are claiming that Pixar's Up is the funniest film the company has made to date, but I don't recall crying in Monster's Inc. or Toy Story (though, at times, they did pull at my heart strings). There are indeed humorous parts in the film, but they are not counterbalanced evenly by the somber parts. For the most part, Up is a meditation on grieving and the impermanence of life. But the real, more Up-lifting message of the movie, without any trace of cliché, is that the journey far surpasses the destination. (3) I cried five times during the movie -- FIVE -- and I loved every minute of it. Pixar created a near-perfect film. I would only put WALL-E and Monster's Inc. above it.

Synopsis: Up follows the adventures of grumpy ol' Carl Fredricksen, modeled after Walter Matthau and Spencer Tracy, and stow-away Wilderness Explorer Russell as they head to the (unfortunately) fictional Paradise Falls to fulfill Fredricksen's long-forgotten dream of traveling. Using thousands of helium-inflated balloons, Mr. Fredricksen's house is lifted high into the skies as the primary vehicle for their adventure. Russell and Mr. Fredricksen's already onerous journey is interrupted by Kevin (a female bird, named by Russell), Dug (a dog with a collar enabling his thoughts to be heard -- "Squirrel!"), and Charles Muntz, an explorer and Mr. Fredricksen's childhood hero. After returning from an exploration with the bones of an unknown bird, Muntz was declared a fraud and he disappeared, vowing not to return until he had captured the live bird and redeemed his reputation. Mr. Fredricksen has to choose between saving the meddlesome Russell and his pet Kevin, reaching Paradise Falls before the helium deflates, or helping his childhood hero capture the bird.

The power of silence: For anyone who's been paying attention, Pixar has an unparalleled brilliance in the art of silence. All of their film's preceding shorts are entirely silent -- "Geri's Game" is still my favorite -- and WALL-E took this devotion to storytelling in a lengthier direction. Up also contains an element of silence, and although it's only five minutes long, it is by far the most affecting.

First of all, we are introduced to Carl Fredricksen as a child. The film opens with him watching new reel footage of Charles Muntz's career. Dressed in an aviator hat and goggles and holding a blue balloon, he comes across an abandoned home -- not unlike the old Granville house in It's a Wonderful Life, another home of great symbolic meaning -- where he meets a young and very talkative girl named Ellie. Young Carl is stunned not only by her vivacity but by her shared adoration for Charles Muntz. Not once do we hear Carl talk, which is important because it is the older, grieving Carl with whom the audience is supposed to identify and not the younger, dream-filled child. One night, a blue balloon enters Carl's bedroom window, followed by Ellie and an incomplete scrapbook, waiting to be detailed with great adventures. She makes Carl promise to take her to Paradise Falls -- to cross his heart -- a promise that we soon learn he failed to keep.

What follows is a five minute silent montage of Ellie and Carl's marriage and life together, from painting a mailbox with their handprints to learning that they are unable to have children. They have moved into the old Granville house, as I shall refer to it, and we see them washing windows from opposite sides (her smile becomes a reflection of his), Carl working as a balloon salesman and Ellie as a bird handler, and putting extra coins into a Paradise Falls jar. Other financial obligations force them to repeatedly break the jar, and the dream of visiting Paradise Falls become a faint memory as Ellie grows weaker and dies of old age. After her death, cleaning the windows becomes a reminder of loneliness as Ellie's smile is not there to greet him, and the mailbox with their interlocking handprints becomes a physical reminder of their time together. Carl spends his days in a chair next to Ellie's chair.

Within the first twenty minutes of the movie, I was crying. Not just one tear, but many. And it was the power in the montage's storytelling that kept me emotionally tied to the misunderstood Mr. Fredricksen throughout the movie. He was merely a man who missed his wife, and he refused to change any material thing in her absence. It was only the threat of being moved to a retirement home and the recollection of a cross-your-heart promise that prompted him to do the impossible -- travel to Paradise Falls with the house that he and Ellie made into a home.

The house: Essentially, Up is both a coming of age tale (for Russell) and an unfinished love story (for Carl, who is still dealing with the loss of his wife). Russell, a child of divorce, is the perfect company for Carl as both of them are dealing with the weight of loss -- represented by the house, which both tie to their waists as a means of keeping it from floating away. The house represents family, something that Russell and Carl both feel is lacking in their lives, and the house is a constant physical manifestation of that loss. Only after carrying the burden of the house and becoming friends in the process are either of them able to regain purpose.

The house also, of course, represents Ellie. As her picture hangs on the wall in the living room, Carl often talks to it -- the picture specifically and the house generally -- and it looks to both Russell and the audience as though Carl perceives the house to be his wife. And it is. Every inch of that house contains a reminder of Ellie -- a bird she once painted, her scrapbook of memories, her chair, her picture on the wall, etc. When Carl initially takes flight, he steers his house in the living room where young Ellie pretended to take the reigns of a flying blimp. And the implausibility of a flying house -- by balloons, no less -- is ignored because of what the house represents. The film's use of balloons clearly orchestrates a life-long connection between Ellie and trying to reach for your dreams, but it's also a visual personification of Ellie floating towards the heavens and Carl trying to keep her close to the ground. Carl and Russell eventually reach Paradise Falls, but they are on the wrong side of the canyon and have limited time to take the house to its proper location before the helium in the balloons runs out. The helium, then, becomes a metaphor for time. Just like sand in an hourglass, time is escaping and Carl is constantly reminded of that burden.

This leads me to another point in the movie in which I began to cry: Exasperated and lacking time himself, Muntz lights Carl's house on fire to deter Carl from following him. It wasn't just a house on fire; it was Ellie. Luckily for us, the house does not burn down and Carl is able to place the home in its rightful place. Russell, however, has been kidnapped by Muntz and are floating back to the States with the exotic bird, Kevin, with them. Carl sits down in his chair -- next to Ellie's chair, in the very spot he crossed-his-heart he would take her -- and he can't be at peace because he knows that Russell, who has becomes Carl's new family, needs him. In order to make his house fly again, Carl unloads his house (and thus his baggage, his past), leaving all material items in a heap outside. All save two items, his and Ellie's chairs, which are set upright beside the heap of furniture. Insert waterworks again.

The importance of family: Before Carl discovers that Russell's been kidnapped, he leafs through Ellie's childhood scrapbook. He finds momentos of her married life with Carl, as well as a final note thanking him for their own adventure (life) and then encouraging him to go have his own. I somehow found a way to hold back the tears at this moment, but then Carl goes to the door looking for Russ and finds Dug, who says, "I was hiding under the porch because I love you." And then I began crying. Dug was once an additional burden for Fredricksen, but now he has been accepted as a loving companion who chooses to go on an adventure with Fredricksen even when he wasn't wanted. The familial presence of Dug is only heightened by Kevin, who, as a bird, becomes an extension of Ellie. Ellie was a bird handler and created a wooden bird, one of the many items Carl tries to salvage throughout the narrative, and so it only seems appropriate that he extends his love of Ellie onto Kevin, who becomes a temporary replacement for his wife. At the end of the adventure, Carl has to say goodbye to Kevin and release her back with her family, just as he had to say goodbye to Ellie.

The importance of dreams: One of the many, many morals of this movie is that dreams, whether realized or not, are important and that sometimes we embark on journeys without even realizing it. John Lennon once said, "Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans." At one particularly profound moment, we learn why Russell is so intent on receiving his "Help the Elderly" Wilderness Explorer badge. Since his parents' divorce, which is never stated and only alluded to, Russ never sees his father except when he's awarded a new badge. There is an empty spot on Russ's sash -- right over his heart -- where the badge will be placed. He explains to Fredricksen that afterwards, he and his dad would go to an ice cream shop and count the red and blue cars passing by. Fredricksen rolls his eyes in annoyance, but then Russ says, "I know this stuff may seem boring, but it's the boring stuff I remember." This is yet another moment when I began to cry because this, of course, mirrors the earlier montage of Fredricksen remembering the quotidian of his life with Ellie.

At the end of the film, Russ gets his badge, but his father never shows up. Then we hear a familiar grumpy voice pushing through the crowd to pin the badge on Russ's sash. It's Mr. Fredricksen, but instead of the badge, he's pinned a grape soda pop top Ellie had pinned on his lapel when they were children. Once again, Up has illustrated a deep and profound love through the passing of a material object, and I... well, you know what I did. After the ceremony, Russell and Fredricksen go to the curb of the ice cream store and count the red and blue cars passing by. In a quick montage, the film closes with the future adventures of Russ and Fredricksen, two lost persons who found a new family and new dreams to have together.

Russell had the dream to get his Wilderness Explorers badge, which was really an excuse for him to spend time with his absent father, and Fredricksen had the dream to go to Paradise Falls with Ellie. Both of these dreams were important to the individuals who held them, but both were able to see the new adventures right before them.

springfieldpunx: pop culture awesomeness

2009-05-27T14:10:00.002-04:00

Dean Fraser, artist of the Springfield Punx series, enjoys taking pop culture characters (and real people) and turning them into Simpsons-style characters. When you go to his website, you'll find that he has a healthy obsession with all things related to Batman (he has at least four different variations on The Joker and three on The Penguin), and he's currently doing a series of Lost characters (Ben Linus, Charlie, and Hurley). I really enjoy and appreciate the work he does, and I hope you do too. His Arrested Development series (including some secondary characters!) is especially entertaining.

Update, May 30th: Here are some Lost characters. (l-r) John Locke, Ben Linus (he does get beat up a lot), and Sawyer (aka Jim LeFleur)

(l-r) Rorschach from Watchmen, Marty McFly and Doc Brown from Back to the Future

(l-r) Dwight from The Office, Captain Freakin' Planet, Dr. Greg House from House

Late Night Gods: (l-r) Steven Colbert, Craig Ferguson (complete with yodeling monkey!), and Conan O'Brien

Arrested Development alert! (l-r) Tobias "I Think I Just Blue Myself" Fünke, Steve "Steve Holt!" Holt, and Buster "I'm a Monster!" Bluth

fellini's 'roma': the papal fashion show

2009-05-25T12:00:00.000-04:00

For my dad: "We'll always have Rome."

lost: the valenzetti equation and a moment of grace

2009-05-21T09:31:00.001-04:00

Between seasons 2 and 3 of Lost the writers and producers created an alternate reality game (ARG) known as The Lost Experience. In short, it was intended to engage the audience in a narrative that would be too difficult to tell on the show itself. Videos were created and hidden on the internet, following a band of contemporary characters following the Dharma Initiative and the Flight 815 hoax. The Lost Experience supposedly followed the story of Lost, and those who chose to engage in the experience would be rewarded with extra information while those who didn't follow the game (and only watched the show) would not be missing anything. And for the most part, that's been true. I stopped following easter eggs on the internet after season 3, but there is one part of the Lost Experience that has become part of the mythology for me, a major part that has yet to be addressed on the show: the Valenzetti Equation.

The Lostpedia website explains:

According to the 1975 orientation film in the Sri Lanka Video, the Valenzetti Equation "predicts the exact number of years and months until humanity extinguishes itself." During the video, Alvar Hanso also states that the radio transmitter on the Island, will "broadcast the core numerical values of the Valenzetti Equation." The numbers, 4, 8, 15, 16, 23 and 42, are explained in the Sri Lanka Video, as the numerical values to the core environmental and human factors of the Valenzetti Equation. Alvar Hanso also states in the video that the purpose of the DHARMA Initiative is to change the numerical values of any one of the core factors in the equation in order to give humanity a chance to survive by, effectively, changing doomsday. However, Thomas Mittelwerk reveals that as of 2006, they have failed to change the values through manipulating the environment, as the equation continues to arrive at the same six numbers.

The equation, therefore, is a mathematical prediction of the end of days, and Dharma is part of the experiment to change the equation. So here are my questions: (1) Why hasn't the show explained either the Valenzetti Equation or Dharma's purpose? Having just finished season 5, I would think the Cuse and Lindelof would have incorporated this background information into the story by now. Changing the equation explains why Dharma is experimenting with polar bears in tropical climates, electro-magnetism, and time-travel (the bunnies). (2) The purpose of the numbers 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, and 42 are still being depicted on the show as coincidental. When they were etching the numbers into the Swan's door, why wasn't there an explanation as to why those numbers were chosen? And (3) the show is heavily invested in this idea of variables. If the following theory is correct (which I attribute entirely to my mother), then why hasn't the Valenzetti Equation been mentioned?

If the show does not incorporate the Valenzetti Equation into the last season of the show, I will be very disappointed. The following explanation of the show has allowed me to accept and appreciate the characters, their ridiculous circumstances (and even more ridiculous decisions), and to embrace the tone of the show rather than merely criticize the reality of it.

The End-All, Explain-All Theory (that makes Lost better than it actually is)

If we assume that changing the Valenzetti Equation is in fact part of Lost's mythology -- and I really hope it is because it explains so much (for a show that explains so little) -- then we can connect Jacob and Esau's "game" to the equation as well. Let's say that Jacob and Esau are god-like characters (not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God, but some sort of metaphysical beings), who are engaged in an eternal debate concerning the quality of humanity. To borrow the over-arching question of Battlestar Galactica -- Is humanity worth saving? Season 5's finale began with Esau stating, "They come, fight, they destroy, they corrupt. It always ends the same." It refers to the cycle of destruction in humanity's history, and cyles are traceably mathematical in nature, so Esau could be representative of the Valenzetti Equation. He predicts and awaits for humankind of destroy itself. (I will ignore, for now, what the loophole is and why Esau is intent on killing Jacob. Perhaps Esau isn't interested in saving humanity.) Jacob's duty, therefore, is to prove to Esau that humanity is worth saving -- that the outcome of the equation/cycle can be changed -- by choosing randomly selected individuals to represent the human race.

The random selection is important. Sure, Jacob could have chosen Buddhist monks or philanthropists to come to the island, but the point is that humanity is flawed. Our heroes are flawed. Our heroes make mistakes. Our heroes are not incredibly intelligent. They are average people who are conflicted between their hearts and their heads, between doing what is right and doing what is necessary. And as Daniel Faraday mentioned before he died, our characters are the variables. Not variables in time travel, but variables in the equation. Faraday noted that free will is what changes the course of history. Our heroes were chosen to save humanity through their choices.

In the finale, Jacob is reading Flannery O'Connor's Everything that Rises Must Converge collection of short stories outside of the hospital where Locke's father pushes him out the window. Wikipedia describes the collection as follows:

In the story after which the work is titled, human weaknesses are exposed and important moral questions are explored through everyday situations. Critics view the story as a prime example of O’Connor’s literary skills and moral views. [...] Through irony, the blindness and ignorance of the characters are exposed. The title Everything That Rises Must Converge refers to an underlying religious message central to her work: aiming to expose the sinful nature of humanity that often goes unrecognized in the modern, secular world.

My mother, having a PhD in Southern literature, explained to me that Flannery O'Connor's works are about a moment of grace, where a character, despite their moral turpitude, may be redeemed. Patrick Galloway expands on this in his essay, "The Dark Side of the Cross: Flannery O'Connor's Short Fiction":

O'Connor is compassionate to her characters in that she gives them the opportunity of receiving grace, however devastating that might be to their fragile self-images, as well as their fragile mortal frames, for in O'Connor, grace often comes at the moment of grisly death.

In a letter written to Winifred McCarthy, Flannery O'Connor writes, "There is a moment in every great story in which the presence of grace can be felt as it waits to be accepted or rejected, even though the reader may not recognize this moment." [...] Critic Carter W. Martin notes, "Most of the short stories are constructed in such a way as to dramatize the sinfulness and the need for grace..." and goes on to delineate two different kinds of grace normally received by the characters: "prevenient grace-- which moves the will spontaneously, making it incline to God--and illuminating grace, by which God enlightens men to bring them nearer to eternal life." That is to say either a kind of spark that ignites a low smolder of realization, or full-blown revelation. Usually the character "recognizes his need for repentance and either accepts or ignores the opportunity.

In "The Incident: Part I and II," many of the characters have a moment of reaching grace -- hence the significance of Jacob's flashbacks. (Earlier I mentioned that I didn't like the flashbacks, but considering that Jacob was present for each character's moment of grace, I now appreciate their relevance to both the characters and the mythology of the show.) Kate promises to near steal again, but we all know that she chooses to rob a bank later in life (which leads to the death of her childhood friend). Sawyer's decision to write a letter to the man who killed his parents is thwarted by an inkless pen. Jacob gives him a new pen, allowing him the choice to continue writing the letter. A friend of the family tells young James Ford not to finish the letter, but we know that he chooses to finish it later. Locke is essentially killed by his father but is revived from Jacob's touch. This is the moment where Locke is given a second chance at life. He can go on being pathetic and miserable (a failed relationship, daddy issues, etc.) or he can choose a life of adventure. His infamous line -- "You cannot tell me what I can and cannot do" -- places the decisions of his life solely in his hands. Despite being in a wheelchair, he chooses to do a walk-about. When faced with killing his father, per Ben's instructions, Locke chooses to ask Sawyer to do it (which is arguably Sawyer's moment of choice as well). Sun and Jin, our resident couple of institutional love, get married and vow to honor and love one another. But we all know that Jin chooses to work and murder for Sun's father and that Sun chooses to have an extramarital affair. Their moment of grace comes through their separation in time. Three years after the time split, Sun and Jin refuse to let go of the idea of finding one another. (Love, my friends, love is what will save humanity.) With Jack and Hurley, they are both at a crossroads -- Jack with quitting his job and Hurley with being released from prison. They can continue moving forward, or they can change direction altogether. As Jacob points out to Hurley, he doesn't have to get on the Ajira flight. He could have chosen to walk away.

And most importantly, Ben has the choice to kill Jacob. Perhaps it is because Jacob knows how Ben will choose -- Ben does have quite the history of killing people (let's not forget about The Purge) -- that prompts him to tell Ben, "You? What about you?" He says it with such sadness, not because he knows that he is about to die but because Ben represents everything that is greedy and immoral about humanity. Ben could have walked away. But he didn't. He chose to kill Jacob, hence Esau's victory burial of Jacob in the fire.

The entire series of Lost has been about choices. Originally it was about the choices of Jack versus Locke, but when you consider all of the flashbacks throughout the series, it makes a lot of sense that these flashbacks serve to illustrate not simply the type of character each individual person is, but also how they come to make choices. What outside influencing factors help determine their path? What do they choose to ignore, what do they choose to embrace? And most importantly, how is their moment of grace significant to the Valenzetti Equation? Sawyer sacrificed himself by jumping out of the helicopter. Kate returned to the island to find Claire. Jack and Juliet, the rational characters, are willing to "reset" history for love. Charlie sacrificed himself for Desmond and the others. Michael died as a means of redeeming himself for leaving the island. A majority of these deeply flawed characters have already had their moment of grace, that moment where they undoubtedly answer the question -- Yes. Yes, humanity is worth saving.

episodes: bones, grey's anatomy, the office, 30 rock

2009-05-20T15:21:00.002-04:00

Bones: I am extremely irritated with this show. The season four finale, "The End in the Beginning," offered viewers an immediate look at Brennan and Booth in bed together -- something the creators have sworn up and down would be real and not a hallucination or a dream -- only to discover that it's not actually Brennan and Booth. While the real Booth has been in a coma for the past four days, the audience learns in the last two minutes that Brennan has been writing a crime short story/book based on people she know. The following are my major irritations: (1) First of all, the actual story she writes -- complete with a lame Hodgins voiceover -- isn't a very good story. (2) Secondly, it took me an entire forty minutes to figure out where this bizarro world came from. These are characters I know, and yet somehow they're not... oh, it's a story. Told by someone. For some reason. That won't be revealed until the last two minutes of the show. Because the writers didn't introduce it as a story (but rather immediately leapt into bed with Booth and Brennan for cheap thrills), I spent a majority of the hour waiting for the end of the episode. I didn't care about these bizarro characters with their bizarre personalities. I wanted to get back to the normal Bones world I had grown to love. The only thing I liked about this world was that it showed how well John Francis Daley (Sweets) can sing. (3) And lastly -- and this is a major problem -- there was no chemistry between the lead actors during their sex romp. This could be because of two reasons. One, the sex came at the very beginning of the episode, and because there was no build-up, the scene couldn't climax (much like the characters, I'm sure). Without the build-up, there's no audience investment. Or two, randomly beginning the episode in bed -- with Booth in a hospital bed in the last episode -- lead to a lot of confusion. So instead of enjoying the moment for what it was, the audience scratched their heads and wondered what happened between last week and this week that allowed Booth to be healthy enough to engage in sexual relations. Outside of these two possibilities, the scene simply didn't work. It was awkward and the actors seemed to be pulling back. (The actors are friends in real life, so I bet it was like kissing a sibling on the set.) But most of all, imagining a story is the exact same as dreaming. Brennan and Booth still have not had sex, something the creators have been promising since mid-season. I'm angry. I feel cheated. And the fact that this show has been renewed for two more seasons really worries me.

The Office: Hands down, the finale "Company Picnic" was the best thing on television last Thursday. It was able to balance the multiple strengths of the show, including sight gags and verbal jokes, outrageous caricaturizations (which Blogspot informs me is not a word, but then again, neither is Blogspot) and quiet moments of heart-tugging goodness. Steve Carrell and John Krasinski really brought their A-game to this episode, and the writers pulled off a wonderful showcase of the often times overlooked or ignored supporting cast. Stanley had the winning line of the night: "I usually don't enjoy the theater, but this is delightful." The episode began with a wonderful prank on Michael -- wonderful because it's based in reality (what office employee doesn't dream of taking advantage of their boss and skipping out on a full day of work?) -- and it was nice to see Dwight get in on the prank. And yes, I enjoyed Dwight's awful pun while changing the clocks, "Like clockwork." And then the episode follows our favorite Scranton Branch into the Dundler-Mifflin company picnic, where hilarity ensues on the volleyball court and we discover, through one of the sweetest moments of the show, that Jim and Pam are pregnant. It's a scene that is right above the proposal (for its style of execution) and just below the kiss from "Casino Night" (only because nothing will ever touch the awesomeness of that moment). The reveal came through a window in the hospital (begin watching at the 20:14 mark), and we see the look of shock and awe on Jim and Pam's face, right before they kiss each other and Jim starts crying. Then he comes out to call Dwight with the sweetest line of the episode, "Dwight, send in the subs." Way to make my heart swell, Krasinski.

Below are some of the highlights:
• I loved the introduction of Dwight's best friend, Rolf -- "I met him in a shoe store. I heard him asking for a shoe that could increase his speed and not leave any tracks." -- mostly because I will never tire of anyone calling Angela a whore.
• Michael wrote down a list of why he and Holly are soul mates -- "Holly and I are soup snakes, and the reason is... in terms of the soup... that doesn't make any sense. We're soul mates." -- and was smart enough to know he should wait to tell her of his affections. Michael Scott is only as self-aware when he's around Holly.
• I'm going to miss Idris Elba as Charles, Michael's interim manager while Michael created the Michael Scott Paper Company. In this episode, his competitive nature really heightened his character's contempt for the Scranton Branch, namely Jim. This is a very specific type of character that would work well within the Office universe. Best line: "It must be nice to get a rest from all your rest."
• Michael and Holly's skit, "Slumdunder Mifflinaire," worked so well despite its obvious awkwardness (Michael announces the closing of a branch, when said branch is present without any knowledge of the layoffs) because of Steve Carrell's Indian accent and because they made torture into comedy. This skit, by the way, really showcased why the show will suffer the loss of Amy Ryan next season. Michael and Holly chanting "Dun-der, dun-der, dun-der" to the tune of the Jaws theme song was as sweet as anything Jim and Pam have ever done.
• Pam played volleyball in junior high, high school, college, and went to a volleyball camp most summers -- and she's proud of it.
• Best site gag: As Kevin is speaking into the camera -- "It's 6 to 6. It's a nail biter." -- he gets hit by the volleyball. Unexpected physical pain is always welcome. (And this was followed by Angela asking Kevin, "Now it's 7:6. Or is that too much accounting for you," to which Rolf says, "Here's an accounting question for you. What does one fiance plus one lover equal? Answer: one whore.")
• Second best site gag: To delay the game while Jim takes MVP Pam to the hospital, Dwight kicks the volleyball into the woods with such anger and then yells, "I'll get it!" and saunters away. I laughed embarrassingly hard.

Grey's Anatomy: The finale "Now or Never" was certainly the talk of Facebook on Friday. (Sadly, Facebook statuses have replaced "watercooler talk.") I don't have much to say outside of George and Izzie's storylines -- other than someone needs to give Chandra Wilson (Bailey) an Emmy already, and then more Emmys for the previous seasons that she hasn't won -- so I'll stick to those major characters. (1) Izzie: When she emerged from her surgery with short term memory loss, I immediately thought back to a previous episode where a woman had to be told every 30 seconds that her husband died on his way to the hospital. At first I was peeved because I thought they were recycling material, but then I realized the familiarity of the storyline was supposed to evoke a response to tragedy. What if Izzie had to be told over and over again that the tumor was removed? It's not as heartbreaking when compared to the woman whose husband died, but the source of one's identity is very much rooted in memories. Eating jello (action) is not as defining as remembering whether or not you like jello (memory). We all knew that Izzie's memory would eventually come back, but it was wonderful to see it come back in such an honest way. Her husband Alex delivers one hell of a speech about his fears, which makes Izzie hold on to his words and thus focus on remembering. His speech, delivered so well by Justin Chambers, included thoughts on leaving her, on feeling helpless, on her not being the same person he married. It wasn't sweet; it wasn't romantic. It wasn't anything anyone would ever want to hear after going through brain surgery. But damn was it honest.

(2) George: I didn't realize George was the John Doe on the table until the Chief said he sent O'Malley home early to be with his mother before he departed for Iraq. Creator Shonda Rhimes has noted that the writers deliberately edged George out of major storylines so that when he was absent in the finale, nobody would take notice. Well Shonda, it worked. I was completely taken by surprise. (Rhimes has also noted in previous seasons that she pitches the season's finale before they even begin writing that season, so I believe her when she says it's merely coincidence that Katherine Heigl and T.R. Knight have been publicly scrutinized for their roles in the show and that they're the ones who end up flatlining at the episode's end.) There are two reasons why George's storyline broke my heart. The first is all due to Ellen Pompeo. Her delivery of "007? 007! 007! Oh my God, oh my God. It's George!" will forever be etched in my memory. Broke. My. Heart. (Best thing Pompeo's done on the show yet.) And second, in the first hour of the two-hour finale, George-as-John Doe is on the operating table, being poked and prodded by all of the major surgeons, including his ex-wife Callie, his mentor Owen Hunt, and his friend Meredith Grey. John Doe stepped in front of a bus to save a complete stranger from being hit, and someone wonders aloud if anyone thinks they could ever do that for someone else. Callie says, "We like to think we would, but... [we wouldn't]." That's our George. George is the type of person to step in front of a bus for someone else. The way that these scenes were set up -- thinking of John Doe as some random patient in the beginning, then realizing that the patient is our heroic George towards the end -- was extremely well plotted. For the most part, the finale was a typical episode... but the last few minutes, where Izzie and George both simultaneously flat line, left a lot of fans screaming at their television, "SERIOUSLY?!?"

30 Rock: My biggest issue with this show is that the jokes are often isolated within specific scenes -- and further, those scenes are isolated from other scenes -- so it was nice to see Liz's fifth grade kidney performance brought back to reveal she went to school with Sheryl Crow. Overall, the episode was just okay, but I didn't care for the forced catchphrase storyline (despite it being funny, it was so self-aware that the irony was quickly replaced by the idea that NBC is making 30 Rock catchphrase central -- even their website has "It's a deal breaker, ladies!" everywhere), or Tracy Jordan going back to high school to deliver a commencement speech. The episode did have one great moment, and that's the closing charity song ("One song. One man. One kidney."), filled with the voices of Mary J. Blige, Elvis Costello (alias of an international art thief), Clay Aiken, Cyndi Lauper, Adam Levine, and many others. It was more parodic than the straight-laced "The American Dream" song from Wag the Dog, and I do enjoy a good mocking of consumer capitalism.

• Dr. Spaceman was used remarkably well in this episode, from "Kidney transplantation is no laughing matter, so I apologize... (insert childish laughter)... kidney is just such a funny word" to yelling "Opposite! Opposite!" at the kidney transplant form.
• Here's a complete list of the catchphrases Liz Lemon offers to various women throughout the episode: "This guy's making you talk like a crazy person. You have sexually transmitted crazy-mouth. That's a deal breaker." "Your fiance's gay. Look at him, look at you. Classic case of 'fruit blindness.'" "He thinks he deserves a va-jay-jay upgrade. He doesn't; he's not Tom Brady. Shut it down." "There's no such thing as bisexual. That's something they created in the 90s to sell hair products." "Only one snake in the bed. Deal breaker!" "Not on my watch, beyotch." "S to the D. Shut it down." "Talk it out before you walk it out." "Long distance is the wrong distance."
• Say what you will about Tracy Morgan as an actor or a human being, his performance as Tracy Jordan makes even the worst storylines so much better. The "When have I ever cried" montage was hysterical. In case you've ever wanted to revisit some of Tracy's best lines, you can go here and read every line he's ever uttered.
• Here are the lyrics to the charity song:

Sometimes life brings pain and strife, and all seems wrong. That's when you find a friend and write a song. So give the gift of giving, and give it far and give it wide. Take the leap pushed down deep inside. And just give a kidney to a father or a dad. Just give a kidney. We hear it doesn't really hurt that bad, and we know you want to give it to a super human being (?). So get it done. We just need one. For Milton Green. This country has six hundred million, and we really only need half, which still leaves three hundred million kidneys. Do the math. Milton Green (x a lot). He needs a kidney. Milton Green. Don't ask why, he could die if you don't call today. Listen, when someone starts talking in the middle of a song, you know it's serious. So give Milton a kidney. We all believe in this cause so much that we're doing it for free. Except for Sheryl. And only three of us are drunk.

The song continues, but it moves so quickly between the celebrities... but the highlight was Cyndi Lauper exclaiming, "I'm one of the drunk ones!"

review: angels and demons

2009-05-18T09:43:00.003-04:00

I am going to preface my review by saying that I used to mock my father -- and still do, really -- every time he shouts "I've been there!" during a location shot in movies. Italy, France, Turkey, England... he's been to many a far off lands, so imagine how often I've had to endure the phrase, "I've been there!" But then something happened. He took me to England. He took me to France. And he took me to Italy. So now whenever I see the Gherkin or Piazza San Marco, I exclaim with childish glee, "I've been there!" and he becomes the one mocking me. I went to see Angels and Demons with him yesterday (as well as my equally well-traveled mother), and having walked around Rome with the explicit intent of following the path laid out in Dan Brown's novel, I sat in my seat, squirming and beaming with extreme sensory recognition. Raphael's Chigi Chapel. Bernini's St. Teresa in Ecstasy in Santa Maria della Vittoria. Raphael's tomb and the occulus in the Pantheon. The Baldacchino (which rests above St. Peter's tomb) in St. Peter's Cathedral. Between receiving my undergraduate degree in art history and walking the exact path of protagonist Robert Langdon, I was geeking out throughout the entire movie, suppressing the urge to scream "I've been there!" over and over and over again.

With that said, I have no idea if this is a good movie. I walked away feeling pleased, but that's because I've been there and there and there. Some quick notes: First, Ayelet Zurer, who plays the female lead Vittoria, is infinitely better cast than Audrey Tautou in The da Vinci Code. Second, this film is heavy on exposition -- but, unlike Duplicity, the scenes move along quickly and the narrative unfolds at an entertaining pace -- and, although I had no personal dissatisfaction with it, I can understand how anyone unfamiliar with either Rome or art history might get lost along the way. Third, the film starts with a short introduction to CERN and their large hadron collider, which is one of my favorite things ever. The science behind the scene is reductive and oversimplified, but I suppose that's necessary to move the plot along. Still, this allows me a good opportunity to share some links:

• The science behind Angels and Demons, including, while unrelated to the film, whether or not the LHC creates black holes.
• Has the Large Hadron Collider Destroyed the World Yet? This is a website to check. Daily.
• CERN's easy explanation of antimatter.
• Some breathtaking photos of the LHC. Who says technology can't also be art?

And lastly, the film explains the Illuminati's mission in one scene, and if you happen to zone out during that scene or leave to use the restroom, you will miss the secret organization's motive. Also, Langdon does not explain -- at all, if I'm remembering correctly -- why the eye, obelisk, or pyramid are associated with the Illuminati. He just says, "An eye within a pyramid! The sign of the Illuminati!" and you're supposed to accept it. On the plus side, the film revisits the science vs. faith dichotomy enough times that even if you don't understand who exactly the Illuminati were, you at least know why they existed.

The film, of course, made damn sure that it offended neither religious people nor atheists, which actually disappointed me. (Not that the film wasn't insulting, but because there was no real debate between any of the characters.) The head Swiss guard and the camerlengo are quick to point out Langdon's atheism, but he has a private audience with church officials at the end that makes everything copasetic. The political correctness just seemed a little forced. Many members of the papal court -- particularly the head cardinal -- are suggested to have a duplicitous nature (he's religious but with immoral motivations!), but there are many positive conversations about the necessity of faith and religion. As an agnostic, I always appreciated Dan Brown's handling of this debate, and I was sad that my favorite part of the book was not included in the film.(*) In the book, the camerlengo (played in the film by Ewan McGregor) grabs a news reporter's microphone and gives a message to those watching coverage of the papal conclave. Included in that message, he says to the non-believers, "You look at the stars and you say, 'How can there be a God?' I look at the stars and I say, 'How can there not be a God?'"(**) I've always referred back to this scene when people ask me to explain why I'm agnostic (which they incorrectly perceive as "fence-sitting").

(*) Although this scene was not in the film, there are other scenes that state quite plainly that science and religion are not, or should not, be contradictory.
(**) I do not have a copy of the book on me at the moment, and I have not read the book in a few years. This is a scene that I pulled from memory, so there is a good chance the wording is entirely incorrect.

I'm fairly certain I enjoyed the film, though I know others may not be as forgiving as I am. Whenever my brain contemplated a plot hole (the set-up of the goose chase is pretty implausible, considering the limitations of the villain), I just remembered Bernini's sculptures. When the movie was over, I ran into a friend who said she was less than impressed, but then, she's never been to Rome.

The Vatican? I've been there.

upfront week

2009-05-18T00:53:00.004-04:00

Upfront Week doesn't technically begin until today (Fox on Monday, ABC and NBC on Tuesday, CBS on Wednesday, and CW on Thursday), but already Ausiello has a cheat sheet listing those shows that have been renewed. Here are some highlights, and by that I mean shows that interest me the most (and because reality TV is the bane of my existence, you will not find any of those listed here):

ABC
Better Off Ted: RENEWED. Whoo hoo!
Brothers & Sisters: Renewed.
Castle: RENEWED.
Cupid: Canceled. Yeah... this remake was alarmingly bad.
Desperate Housewives: Renewed. Forever.
Eli Stone: Canceled, and the last of this past season should finish airing this summer.
Grey's Anatomy: Renewed.
Lost: Already Renewed.
Pushing Daisies: Canceled, and the last of this past season should finish airing this summer.
Scrubs: Renewed, with Sarah Chalke and Zach Braff returning for six episodes.
The Unusuals: Canceled. Too bad; the actors had great chemistry together.

CBS
The Big Bang Theory: Renewed for two seasons.
How I Met Your Mother: Not official, but it'll most likely be renewed.
The Mentalist: Ditto. It's the number one show on television.

FOX
24: Renewed.
American Idol: Renewed. Ugh, go away.
Bones: Renewed for two seasons.
Dollhouse: Renewed for thirteen episodes.
Family Guy: Renewed.
Fringe: Renewed.
House: Not official, but it'll most likely be renewed.
The Simpsons: Renewed.
Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: Canceled.

NBC
30 Rock: Renewed.
Chuck: Renewed for thirteen episodes, but with a tighter budget. They'll probably be getting rid of a character, or at least decrease the number of episodes the supporting cast is in.
Heroes: Renewed. Ugh, go away..
The Office: Renewed.
Parks and Recreation: Renewed.

Looking back over this list, I can't help but think... man, I watch a lot of television.

isaac spaceman on lost's finale

2009-05-16T12:37:00.001-04:00

Isaac Spaceman over at Throwing Things wrote the following in a recent post, which I found to be quite insightful. Perhaps Lindelof and Cuse actually have this thing well plotted out...

I thought it was an excellent (but not pantheon-level) Lost, but mostly I was impressed with how intricately-written it was, weaving together not just the basic mythology, the Romeo and Juliet B-story, the turtles-all-the-way-up (tm Carmichael Harold) escalating conflicts (survivors vs. survival; survivors vs. Others; Others vs. Dharma; Ben vs. Widmore; Jacob vs. Esau), but also a number of allusions to prior season finales. To be clear, I'm not saying these are coincidences or minor similarities, in the nature of a high-school "compare and contrast" paper. I think these were explicit callbacks to the prior finales and restagings of pivotal scenes or shots. To wit:

• In the Season 1 finale, "Exodus," Jack takes a volatile explosive (old dynamite) from an anachronistic source (an inland-beached galleon) and carries it in a backpack to the Swan hatch, to blow it up. In "The Incident," Jack takes a volatile explosive (a plutonium core rigged to blow on impact) from an anachronistic source (an underground Egyptian temple) and carries it in a backpack to the Swan hatch, to blow it up. "Exodus" ends with the camera going down the hatch. "The Incident" ends with the camera going down the hatch (though it is shot in the accelerating style of the last shot in the pre-credits opening of the

• Season 2 opener, "Man of Science, Man of Faith," when the camera went the other direction).
The Season 2 finale was "Live Together, Die Alone." In "The Incident," Juliet answers Sawyer's "what do we do, Blondie?" question with "Live together, die alone." The climax of "Live Together, Die Alone" is the implosion of the Swan, followed by Desmond, laying underneath the station, turning the failsafe key, triggering a fade to white. In "The Incident," the Swan implodes, followed by Juliet, laying underneath the station rubble, beating the bomb with a rock, triggering a fade to white.

• In the Season 3 finale, "Through the Looking Glass," Ben asks to speak with Jack alone before Jack does something that will cause everyone on the island to die. "The least you can give me is five minutes," he says. "Five minutes," Jack responds, and Ben invites Jack to "have a seat on the rock." In "The Incident," Sawyer asks to speak with Jack alone before Jack does something that will cause everyone on the island to die. "I need five minutes, that's all ... you owe me that much, Jack," says Sawyer. "Five minutes," replies Jack, and Sawyer invites Jack to "take a load off" on the rock. Also, in "Through the Looking Glass," Hurley rides to the rescue in a Dharma microbus. In "The Incident," Hurley rides to the rescue in a Dharma microbus.

• The big reveal in Season 4's finale, "No Place Like Home," is that the object in the box is Locke's corpse. The big reveal in "The Incident" is that the object in the box is Locke's corpse.

Also, in Lost-related news, I recently discovered Jorge Garcia's blog, and he seems like a really awesome guy. Between the hilarious photo captions ("I think that guy flipped me off.") and all of the misadventures he seems to have (cake batter in a spray can, really?), it's a lot of fun to read. In another life, I'm sure he and I would be BFF -- all because of a simple photo frame.

ew: 50 most heart-breaking songs of all time

2009-05-16T09:56:00.002-04:00

Johnny Cash, "Hurt"
Entertainment Weekly created a list of the 50 most heart-breaking songs of all time. It's a pretty good list, and below are some highlights (all commentary written by the EW staff). I was going to include some of the suggestions from the commenters, but so many of them picked Adult Top 40 songs (The Fray's "How to Save a Life," really?) that I think a lot of them missed the point of the list.

49. Sufjan Stevens, "John Wayne Gacy Jr." (2005)
The only song about a real-life serial murderer on our list, Stevens' intimate, piano-strewn portrait of a killer is truly a masterwork of creeping devastation: "He dressed up like a clown for them / With his face paint white and red / And on his best behavior / In a dark room on the bed he kissed them all."

44. Jackson Browne, "Late for the Sky" (1974)
"Looking hard into your eyes, there was nobody I'd ever known," Browne sings on this intimate peek at a crumbling relationship. "Such an empty surprise to feel so alone." Bedroom navel-gazing at its best.

36. Phil Ochs, "Rehearsals for Retirement" (1969)
The underrated folk singer's reluctant goodbye to the world must have been painful enough to hear when it first came out and his career was still active. Listening to the same words now with the knowledge that Ochs would take his own life seven years later is almost unbearably tragic.

18. Bill Withers, "Ain’t No Sunshine" (1971)
Withers was working in a factory making airplane toilet seats when he wrote this remarkably bleak but beautiful R&B ode to longing for someone when she's gone.
[Side note: It's hard for me to hear this song without immediately thinking of Notting Hill.]

15. Beck, "Lost Cause" (2002)
On the saddest track of Beck's saddest album, love hasn't just slipped away -- it's no longer worth fighting for, replaced by apathy and pretty, pretty exhaustion.

14. Bonnie Raitt, "I Can't Make You Love Me" (1991)
Is there anything more heart-wrenching than begging someone to make love to you one last time -- knowing they don't want you anymore? Can't think of it.
[Side note: Remember when Carrie Underwood auditioned with this piece?]

6. Eric Clapton, "Tears In Heaven" (1992)
The guitarist responded to the accidental death of his four-year-old son with this devastating lament that makes horribly clear the chasm that now lies between Clapton and the loved one he has lost.
[Side note: How is this song not #1? In my very limited opinion, this is the best song ever written.]

3. Johnny Cash, "Hurt" (2002)
The Nine Inch Nails original conjures a sad-if-sadomasochistic glee. Johnny's tear-inducing cover reinterpreted those mixed feelings into ones of genuine loss and heartache.

And then, EW realized they had some glaring omissions and wrote another list of ten, including Jeff Buckley's "Hallelujah," Joni Mitchell's "River," Radiohead's "Fake Plastic Trees," and Tom Waits' "Ruby's Heart."

living at the cineplex

2009-05-15T16:10:00.001-04:00

I've seen a lot of movies in the last two weeks, and instead of doing individual reviews of them (especially since they're a bit late), I'm only going to write a few words on them. In short, the only movie worth seeing again is 17 Again.

Wolverine: For science-fiction fans, origins stories are always a highlight. In most sci-fi narratives, the story begins in the middle (as with the Star Wars trilogy) or at the end (as with most post-apocalyptic tales, such as I Am Legend). Starting in the middle creates intrigue about the character and how they got to this point, and Wolverine is one of the most interesting characters of the X-Men universe. So I'm absolutely flabbergasted that no one even tried to make this into a good movie. Every step along the way, there was some producer going, "This doesn't need to be good; we've got Hugh Jackman!" (1) Wolverine's awesome name, which refers to his primal and animalistic qualities, was appropriated from his girlfriend's Native American story about a jealous moon? What? Seriously? (2) We see Wolverine's original claws, which were rounded and made of bone. It makes absolutely no sense then, that adding adamantium to his skeletal structure would sharpen the blades into sharp killer knives. (3) The good/bad duality was so transparent, obvious, and no additional element was added to it to make it interesting. Wolverine's good; his brother's bad. (4) The action scenes didn't even try to be realistic. One particular shot had Action-Jackman walking away from an explosion, and I swear the shot was created circa 1978. Jackman's face and bad hair fill the frame as fire explodes behind him. Another scene has Ryan Reynolds splitting a bullet with his sword -- I repeat, splitting a bullet with his sword -- and the fractured bullets end up killing two guards behind him. Ridiculous. (5) Speaking of Ryan Reynolds, I don't recall the name "Deadpool" ever being uttered, but the ending of the film sets him up for a sequel. Really, Hollywood? Was this sequel created with the sole intent on formulating another sequel? (6) Overall, it was an entertaining film and, since I saw it as a double-feature and paid only $4.75 for the show, I was able to ignore that two hours of my life were stolen from me. But it's not a good movie. It's not a good story. The relationship aspects (whether with Wolverine's brother or his girlfriend) were poorly constructed. The best part of the film was the opening credits (though nothing will ever top the Watchmen credits), and after that, it lacks creativity (even the big show-down at the end of the film is a mash-up of previous action movies) and never takes off. As far as action films go (and let's be honest, they have different criteria of quality than other genres), I'd give it a C/C+.

Observe and Report: I really didn't get this movie at all. It's a satire that didn't seem to know it was a satire. Seth Rogen plays a mall cop infatuated with Anna Faris's character (I've only ever seen her play one type of character, and I despise the character every time), and he believes that catching the mall flasher will somehow win her heart. Except... he takes her one of the most disgusting dates I've ever seen half-way through the movie, and he doesn't exactly grow by the end of it. The whole point of watching a movie about a useless bum is that eventually he turns his life around or grows up or learns something. And he doesn't. Also -- spoiler alert -- he shoots the flasher. He doesn't catch him; he shoots him. (And really, this is the only scene that suggests the movie's an absurdist satire.) The worst part of the movie, though, was Michael Peña as an offensively stereotypical portrayal of a sexually-ambiguous Mexican with a lisp. There were parts of the movie that were funny, but overall, I look back on the experience and think... what was the point of any of it? Other than sucking my brain out through my eyeballs. I do not recommend this movie to anyone (seriously, who was their target demographic with this?), and I'd give it a D-.

Duplicity: This movie was 90% exposition and 10% Clive Owen looking really good in suits. (And when I think back on the film, there's only 10% of it I care to remember...) In short, Julia Roberts and Clive Owen's characters team up as romantic partners to con two competing corporations for the "ultimate con job." They are CIA agents working for Paul Giamatti's company (and he is completely wasted in this role), with Roberts' character infiltrating his rival's company to compete for -- wait for it -- a hair growth serum. (This was a very disappointing payoff to the biggest build-up in the movie, and I kept hoping for something more monumental to be at the center of everyone's deception. A hair growth serum? Really?) The reason why this movie was so bad is because it was redundant in its execution (exposition voiceovers over a montage of the plan being set into motion), had way too many flashbacks (all to previous romantic encounters of Roberts and Owen's relationship -- which, really, was a false setup for the nature of their relationship), and how often everyone schemes someone else. I like caper films, I do, but they only work when there is one common goal between the main characters. That's why the convoluted plot of Ocean's 11 worked, despite there being such a large cast. Throughout the movie, Roberts and Owen's characters constantly deceive and question one another, and the movie tells me that it's in their nature to do so and, furthermore, this makes them ideal partners in a romance. Umm, no. I understand that the writers were setting up a world where nothing is as it seems and no one can be trusted -- and the audience, therefore, cannot predict the ending -- but it became too much plot and not enough character development. And I won't give away the ending, but... it was suitable, both within the narrative itself (nobody wins!) and also the execution. That's right. The ending of the movie is a flashback montage with a voiceover explaining how everything lead up to the ending. I was bored out of my mind during the movie, but I can understand how other people might enjoy. It wasn't God-awful and I would only recommend it to a select handful of people, but I would never spend my time watching this movie again. I'd give it a C+.

Ghosts of Girlfriends Past: If you've read more than ten posts on this blog or you've ever met me in real life, you know two things almost immediately. I loathe romantic comedies (except for French Kiss), and Nicolas Cage is the worst actor of all time. So why would I voluntarily go see a movie that is so formulaic and saturated in verbal foreplay that even the trailer makes me retch? Because I'm a cinephile, that's why. Because most movies I see are crap, and whether I go into it knowing that or discover it while I'm watching it really makes no difference. Based off of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol (one of my favorite narratives ever told), Ghosts follows Connor Mead, a douchebag with a douchebag name and a douchebag job, on a journey to become less of a douchebag. (Matthew McConaughey was perfectly cast, by the way.) Jennifer Garner's talents are wasted as the "girl who got away (but not so far that she won't forgive ten years of pain for one apology)." The biggest problem with this movie is that Matthew McConaughey doesn't know how to not be a douchebag, so there's no physical, verbal, or emotional growth at the end of the movie. There's just what's in the script. He's the exact same character he was at the beginning of the movie. All of the jokes are tired, and you know exactly how the movie ends. And this could have been fixed -- as much as a romantic comedy could -- by adding another conflict of interest. Connor Mead is the best man in his brother's wedding, and having slept with all of the bridesmaids, he's the most popular guy at the wedding. Even though the women despise his misogynistic ways, they still want to bed him. (There is a scene earlier in the film that mocks this notion, with a young artist telling Connor to use and dispose of her, but it was too realistic for the mocking tone to really pull through. The scene was just sad and offensive, then.) The only real problem that Connor Mead has -- like Ebeneezer Scrooge -- is himself. That leads to a very unfulfilling story, especially when the protagonist (and I use that word in its most basic form) never really changes. Sure, Garner's character is given a love interest (who is surprisingly okay with the fact he was flown in specifically for wedding sex), but they have such little screen time together that he never becomes a real conflict for our two lovebirds. And as with all romantic comedies -- you knew this part was coming, right? -- I was offended by the representation and reduction of women to sex-crazed idiots (who never seem to know how to hold their liquor). Garner's the only character to escape this representation, of course, because romantic comedies push for "authentic women" to be sexy, when really, every woman watching wants to be the other two-hundred sluts represented in the movie. As with Wolverine, I really don't think anyone was even trying to make a good movie. I'd give it an F. That's right. An F. What Michael Douglas was doing in this film is beyond me.

17 Again: I saw this as a double-feature, being the second film after Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, and out of all of the movies I've seen recently, I enjoyed this one the most. Perhaps it's because I have an unabashed crush on Zac Efron (he's just so pretty), or perhaps it's because any movie following Ghosts would look like Citizen Kane, but this movie has a lot to recommend it. But first, the bad: (1) What's more unbelievable, that Matthew Perry would be transformed into his former 17-year-old self, or that Zac Efron would grow up to look like Matthew Perry? Yeah... (2) There was a lot of creepiness floating around regarding romance. I remember watching the trailer and thinking Efron's character, Mike O'Donnell, shouldn't be protecting his daughter from a slimey boyfriend because she'll mistaken his concern for romantic affection, and... yep, that's what happens. His daughter tries to seduce him -- as a lioness, no less. Also, he hits on his ex-wife (Leslie Mann, who's remarkable in everything) in practically every scene they're in, and it's often uncomfortable to watch, even as an outsider who knows what the real situation is. (3) The age-reversal comes too early in the movie, and they don't explain why/how it happens. There's a random "spirit guide" who allows him this transformation without so much of a reason why. At least in Pleasantville, Don Knox explained why he made the switch. But once you get past, you know, the plot, the rest of the movie is smooth sailing. Now for the good: (1) Thomas Lennon (of Reno 911) steals every scene he's in as Mike's geeky best friend. He's obsessed with wooing the principal (played by The Office's Melora Hardin), and he wins her over with Lord of the Rings references and Elfish. (2) Zac Efron was able to project a "fatherly tone" quite well when he was in "father" mode around his children. He's a little too good at basketball (one scene finds him dribbling circles around his daughter's boyfriend, and the scene sticks out from the rest of the movie), but I knew there were going to be random moments displaying Efron's awesomeness going into the movie. (3) Leslie Mann is a landscaper, and the backyard she creates is AMAZING. Okay, so that has less to do with the movie more with my love of HGTV, but it's still something I enjoyed. And (5) This isn't really spoiling anything because most age-reversal movies have "the moment of honesty" (where the transformed protagonist tells his love interest the truth in a very vague way), but this film, I think, has the best moment I've seen in this genre.

"I want to remind you of September 7th, 1988. It was the first time that I saw you. You were reading Less Than Zero, and you were wearing a Guns 'n' Roses t-shirt. I'd never seen anything so perfect. I remember thinking that I had to have you or I'd die... then you whispered that you loved me at the homecoming dance, and I felt so peaceful... and safe... because I knew that no matter what happened, from that day on, nothing can ever be that bad... because I had you. And then I, uh... I grew up and I lost my way. And I blamed you for my failures."

Showing up for his divorce court date as his 17-year-old self, Efron reads a letter to his wife. Efron's delivery of the above words is surprisingly very moving, and the only reason I didn't get teary-eyed is because I was so mesmerized at the notion that Zac Efron can actually act. And of course, his soon-to-be ex-wife finds the letter later and discovers that there was no letter at all. It was a piece of paper with directions to the courthouse. I have to admit, I was very happy with this development. And lastly, (6) most movies, and in particular this genre, like to bash us over the head with a moral reveal. In Big, it was the idea that youth is fleeting and you should enjoy it while you can. Growing up and becoming an adult will eat your soul. (Or something like that.) In 13 Going on 30, it was the idea that being popular is not as important as being true to who you are. If you compromise yourself or your judgments, you will lose out on true happiness (with Mark Ruffalo). And while 17 Again has one of these morals, it's the best one I've seen from this genre. Now this I won't spoil because it's just too good, and because this is the only film on the list I'm actually recommending. I'd give this movie a B (with a smile).

trailers: the "OMG these look awesome" edition

2009-05-14T18:06:00.002-04:00

episode: lost, "the incident" (5.16)

2009-05-14T03:05:00.015-04:00

So... that just happened.

• The fifth season finale of Lost opens with an unfamiliar face (a motif usually reserved for Lost's season premieres) spinning and weaving a tapestry (with a machete!) in the base of the Egyptian statue. He then catches his own fish in a makeshift trap, and offers a piece to another strange face. The Black Rock presumably sails in the distance. There are two interesting things to note here. (1) Jacob and his little friend are involved in some sort of game, one in which rules are applied (hence why Man #2 needs to find a loophole). As Alan Sepinwall notes in his always-insightful recap, this relationship is analogous to Ben and Widmore. Certainly, Ben thought the safety of his daughter was protected under some set of guidelines, which Widmore broke. And (2) Man #2 is certainly an Esau-like character, isn't he? The son of Issac and Rebekah, Esau was the older twin of Jacob. Because his mother favored Jacob, she instructs Jacob to pretend to be Esau in order to obtain his birthright, which then made Jacob the heir after his father's death. In Genesis 27:41, Esau vows to kill his brother, but Rebekah intervenes and saves Jacob.

Genesis 27:41: So Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing that his father had given him. Esau said to himself, "The time to mourn for my father is near. Then I'll kill my brother Jacob."

Although this makes it sound like Jacob is the deceiver, Issac agrees that Esau was not responsible enough for his birthright and denies him a blessing. The brothers eventually reconcile, although only superficially and it seems the rivalry lingered. So between Lost's Jacob and Man #2, who is the deceiver and who is being deceived? Ever since Jacob's name was uttered, we've assumed that Jacob is the most closely linked to the island -- but what if it is really this other man who's in charge? What if Jacob's powers only extend to setting up the pawns of their game?

Here is a complete transcript of the opening teaser.

Jacob: Morning.
Man #2 (Esau?): Mind if I join you?
Jacob: Please. Want some fish?
Man #2: No, thank you. I just ate.
Jacob: I take it you're here because of the ship.
Man #2: I am. How did they find the island?
Jacob: You'll have to ask when they get here.
Man #2: I don't have to ask. You brought them here. You're trying to prove me wrong, aren't you?
Jacob: You are wrong.
Man #2: Am I? They come, fight, they destroy, they corrupt. It always ends the same.
Jacob: It only ends once. Anything that happens before that, it's just progress.
Man #2: Do you have any idea how badly I want to kill you?
Jacob: Yes.
Man #2: One of these days, sooner or later, I'm going to find a loophole, my friend.
Jacob: When you do, I'll be right here.
Man #2: Always nice talking to you, Jacob.
Jacob: Nice talking to you, too.

• So it seems that "Jacob's cabin" isn't actually his cabin. First of all, it seems to be inhabited by Man #2 (at least, according to Ilana, someone other than Jacob), who may very well be able to imitate dead people -- perhaps he is some incarnation of Smokey, and if so, does this mean Man #2 is the Christian Shephard Ben and Sun talk to in present time?(*). And second, it looks as though Rose and Bernard constructed the house(**) as a means of escaping the absurd antics of the Losties. (By the way, I loved the delivery of L. Scott Caldwell's (Rose) lines, "Oh, sure, you guys all joined up with the Dharma Initiative," and "It's always something with you people." God, I missed Rose and Bernard.) This scene, as well as establishing that Sawyer still pines for Kate (despite Juliet being more awesome in every fathomable way), explained the whereabouts of R&B that was true to their characters. "So we die," Bernard says with complete resolve. All they need is each other, and ever the optimists, R&B have everything they need. It was a really heartwarming scene, completely ruined by the dreadful Juliet-Sawyer-Kate triangle.

(*) Man #2 can't be Christian at this point because he's already imitating the body of John Locke, who's standing outside the cabins... right?
(**) I'm just assuming, really. How many houses have we seen on the island besides the Dharma barracks? There is a time-loop problem with this assumption, though. Locke (and arguably Hurley) go to the cabin and see Jacob, but Locke is unable to find the cabin later. If the house was constructed circa 1977, the cabin shouldn't jump locations if flashing through time. I'm sure that the cabin -- and what Man #2 is using it for -- will be explained next season.

• A quick thought from Isaac Spacewoman over at Throwing Things (which I totally agree with): "If I had one nagging thought this entire episode, it was that it is discomforting, and not mildly so, to realize that we're five years into caring about these characters (or some of them), and suddenly it's apparent that most of our heroes are a bunch of zealot terrorists trying to drop a thermonuclear bomb into a peaceful construction site and the rest are plotting to kill God. If, five years ago, we started in the compound watching a bunch of dirty and self-destructive people fall out of the sky to upset our idyll (just like Sawyer and Juliet did a few episodes ago), we probably would have an entirely different perspective on this little adventure."

• Speaking of Juliet, I sure am going to miss Elizabeth Mitchell. She's the only actor on this show who can handle complex emotions. Whereas actors like Matthew Fox (as much as I adore him) and Evangeline Lily and even Josh Holloway can only express one emotion at a time (no matter how intense it is), Mitchell was able to convey rationality, heartbreak, resolve, regret, and love all at once. However, and I completely blame the writers for this, Juliet's apocalyptic-suicide mission would have been so heroic if she hadn't done it for love. ("I saw the way you looked at her." Really?) And on that note, it was admirable that the writers allowed Kate to come back, not for Sawyer but, to give Aaron back to his rightful mother. But then they make it so Jack wants to detonate a bomb because he had Kate and then he lost her? I was certainly under the impression that Jack wanted to detonate the bomb to save (because that's what he does) all of the 815ers who died (Boone, Libby, Ana-Lucia, Nikki, Paolo, Arntz, Charlie, Shannon -- a lot of people died!), but no, he wants to detonate it so he can hit the reset button on him and Kate. I can understand that the writers are planting the two most rational characters -- Jack and Juliet -- as the "believers/saviors" of love, but the execution was just so unbelievable and untrue to their characters.

• Oh, Zombie-Locke and the patricidal Ben. What a sweet couple this pair make. (1) The original Locke is dead dead. His body is still in the coffin from the plane, and this switcharoo was made apparent earlier in the episode, to me at least, when Zombie-Locke suggested to Richard that they kill the other passengers of the Ajira flight. Even Richard was surprised at this suggestion, and if Richard Been-Around, Seen-a-Lot Alpert is surprised, you know something is afoot. (2) Zombie-Locke is most likely Man #2 from the opening scene. This means that it was Man #2 -- and not Richard, and not the original Locke -- who set in motion the idea that Locke is destined to die in order to come back to the island. This means that Ben really did kill Locke, which only adds to his ever-expanding list of father-figures he's taken care of. (3) And now Jacob is on that list. I really thought Ben was going to kill Locke out in the hallway -- there was a moment of hesitance, and when he grabbed the knife from Zombie-Locke, deception seemed inevitable -- so when he killed Jacob, I felt a bit cheated. I thought to myself, "Hey, I was just getting to know this Jacob guy." And then Zombie-Locke pushed Jacob into the fire and burned him.

• Things I liked: Sawyer and Jack finally beat the crap out of each other. This has been a long time coming. (And can it be true that Jack never knew about Sawyer's parents until just now? Kate never told him during their engagement or at any other point in the last three years?) I also loved, loved, loved the few seconds leading up to and during the dropping of the bomb. Everyone knew -- the characters as well as the audience -- that dropping the bomb was suicide, and thankfully the show didn't linger on that obvious fact for too long. When Jack finally dropped the bomb, the looks on everyone's faces -- especially Elizabeth Mitchell's -- were brilliantly done. And what made this scene extra fantastic was the closing shot (similar to season one's ender, "Exodus," where the camera goes down the hatch). Juliet furiously bashes the bomb(***), and when the screen went white, those watching became all too aware of how absurd that idea actually is. Blow up the island? In the hopes we'll return to 2004 and the plane will never land? Now we're stuck in limbo, just as those characters are.

(***) Unlike "Exodus," which did not show us Desmond in a Dharma suit below, "The Incident" showed you what was at the bottom of the well. And FYI, if you're ever angry and need to do something destructive, it seems that cursing at the object to be destroyed always does the trick. When Juliet's rock doesn't detonate the bomb, she yells at it, "Son of a bitc--" and you knew it was over. Ka-blooey.

• Things I didn't like: As much as I enjoyed watching Mark Pellegrino (Rita's abusive ex-husband on Dexter) as Jacob, I did not like the flashbacks. What exactly did they add to the story? Jacob "marks" someone by touching them and they thus become a pawn in his game, and that's fine, but the moments depicted in the flashbacks left a lot to be desired. Young Kate steals a lunchbox? Hurley shares a cab with him after being released from prison (and Hurley's not super freaked out about this guy)? He freaking gives Jack an Apollo bar as a metaphor for "needing a push"? Juliet's parents got a divorce (and Jacob wasn't even in this one)? Wow, snooze. The only interesting about them -- if you would even call this interesting -- is that it seemed like Jacob had a previous connection/relationship/meeting with Ilana. I'm also upset, of course, that neither Radzinsky or Kate died. I know Radzinsky dies later with Kelvin, but gosh darn is that character annoying.

• One last thought before I go... the title at the end of the episode, as well as the teaser for next season, inverted the colors so instead of white-on-black, it's now black-on-white. Perhaps next season takes place in bizarro-world where everything is backwards.

what i've been up to: TV edition

2009-05-13T01:09:00.011-04:00

In all honesty, I haven't had the desire to update since the finale of Battlestar Galactica. I said I would post my reactions to it -- and perhaps one day I still will -- but I never got around to it because, in all seriousness, words failed me. It's analogous to writing a eulogy, except instead of eulogizing one person, you're reflecting on an entire world that's gone. I tried to prepare myself for the end, but nothing could have prepared me for the emotional flood that came at the line, "I know a bit about farming..."

But enough about my unhealthy idolatry of BSG. Here're some quick thoughts on a few things that have crossed my path...

Two shows that have surprisingly won me over are Castle and Better Off Ted. The former's success rests largely with the charm and charisma of lead Nathan Fillion, whereas the latter only succeeds when showcasing its ridiculously funny supporting cast. I think Castle is funnier than most other situational comedies (though technically it's billed as a crime dramedy -- I still haven't decided if incestuous genres elate or irritate me) because Castle's situations are actually funny. When meeting his daughter's boyfriend before prom, he opts to intimidate him with a blood-splattered lab coat and fake severed head. That's much better than the cliché ".45 and a shovel" line. Also, Fillion and his co-star Stana Katic have really strong chemistry together. Their potential romance is masked by Beckett's transparent contempt for him (she keeps him at a distance because his novels got her through a difficult time in her life, and she doesn't want to be vulnerable around him), but it works because the show is able to space time for them to be serious and smart as well as flirtatious and fun. Better Off Ted is the complete opposite of a crime dramedy -- if there would be an opposite for such a genre. This show is about a man who struggles with ethical and moral dilemmas while working at Veridian Dynamics (I recommend watching the company's commercials, especially their response to Barack Obama's address interrupting their air time), and it's therefore a... corporate satire. Between Portia de Rossi's perfect delivery and the Phil-Lem bromance, I'm really hoping ABC takes a chance and renews it for a second season.

Scrubs had a wonderful series finale last week, and I hope that ABC gives creator Bill Lawrence the freedom to create a new show rather than rehash the Scrubs formula. For one, it's time that Scrubs ends (even though I enjoyed this last season on ABC), and two, it's just not Scrubs without the inner monologue of John Dorian. The finale was funny, honest to the characters (J.D.'s book of Dr. Cox's insults was wonderfully balanced by Cox's secret compliment to J.D.), and Alan Sepinwall has a good rundown of some of the show's inside references in the finale. Also, I highly recommend checking out the last five minutes of the show, complete with the perfectly selected "Book of Love" (Peter Gabriel's version) in the background. And while we're on the subject of ABC, the penultimate episode of Lost moved along nicely to set up the events that will occur in the finale tonight. Although the theme of "leading" is so season one (instead of Jack-logic vs. John-faith, it's now Richard vs. Ben vs. Locke vs. Jacob vs. Widmore -- and any of those dynamics are interchangeable), I enjoyed the new and improved Jim LaFleur opting to save himself and his lady Juliet over rescuing the others. My biggest problem is -- and will always be, it seems -- that Lost spent so much time explaining time via the closed-loop theory that I'm going to be really irritated if they switch it midstream. Faraday had this extensive journal detailing his theories on the "constant," and then he goes to Ann Arbor for three years and says, "No, no -- it's about the variables!" That's an unnecessary red herring. And also... You. Can't. Change. The. Past. I'm sure I'll have much, much more to say on Lost after tonight's finale.

Now for the shows that are continuing to disappoint me... While I enjoyed last week's episodes of The Office and 30 Rock, they were still just typical episodes. As comedies, they're supposed to have jokes, and so I did laugh. But the jokes were not mind-blowing or gut-busting at all. (Although, I love that Liz and Pete couldn't guess the ages of black people. Samuel L. Jackson is 61 and Grizz is... 18?) Both shows have had a really uneven season, and the only reason to watch them is to catch the weekly pop culture reference. Unlike How I Met Your Mother, which has created innumerable phrases that have forever changed the pop culture landscape (Legend--wait for it--dary, the cougar, slap bets, the lemon law, "Woo" girls, and of course, Robin Sparkles), 30 Rock offers one-liners that only last a week before being replaced by the next week's one-liner. (This week, it was "That's a deal breaker, ladies!", which was spoon-fed so it's twice as awful.) These shows really need to step up their game and remind us why they were so great in the beginning. Also, I was disappointed in last week's episode of Bones. Brennan's rationalization of wanting a baby with Booth was... irrational. Now, on paper, it makes sense that Brennan would want Booth's child. They each have different skills that would be beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint. She's intelligent, and he's quick-witted and strong. But her reasoning for wanting a child was poorly executed. Having a child is obviously more than extending your good genes. It requires time, patience, selflessness -- and Brennan's decision to pass on her good genes was completely selfish and uncharacteristic of her. However, Booth's reaction (and everyone else's, for that matter) was characteristic and understandable. I just hate it when the Bones writers equate intelligence with obliviousness or social ineptness. Also, what was with Booth having a tumor? They've been planting the seed for a while (previous hallucinations), and all of a sudden he's diagnosed and treated in one episode? Judging by next week's previews, Booth is back on his feet. My guess is the writers needed an emotional response from Brennan to sleep with Booth out of love and not just logistics, and if that's the reason Booth had a freaking tumor, I'm going to be very upset.(*)

(*) In an episode of Slings and Arrows, the creative director explains that mourning is really a selfish act, that when we mourn, we're really mourning our own loss, a loss of ourselves or bits of our identity. This is a very interesting observation, and one that I agree with, that applies here. The only reason to give a MAIN character through a potentially fatal disease is so that other characters are affected by it. It's not a one-episode treatment; it's an evolution of a character's relationship with that person. See, for instance, Izzie and Alex getting married on Grey's Anatomy. Although I think the execution was poorly done (Miranda convinced McDreamy, who then convinced Meredith, who then talked Alex into taking her wedding), but the point is that it deeply impacted the structure of these characters. Most significantly, I think, it allowed Callie to repent her previous hatred for Izzie. Even Cristina was changed by the disease! On Bones, everyone in the waiting room seemed more concerned about Brennan than Booth... and that's just not good writing.

Lastly -- on the TV front, at least -- Dollhouse was a thoroughly disappointing hour, and if the show is renewed for a second season, I will not be watching. The major problems I had with this episode: (1) Ballard tells Romo Lampkin (Mark Sheppard will always be Romo Lampkin to me) that the Dollhouse is underneath them and Romo walks away? Was Ballard's smile to the camera supposed to indicate that he intended for Romo to walk away...? (2) Ballard works for the Dollhouse now? NO. No. Why in the world would DeWitt allow that? Why would Boyd? (3) Eliza Dushku's acting was so horrendous in this episode that I almost broke my TV. Alan Tudyk's Alpha is implanted with multiple personalities (one of whom has a multiple personality disorder!), and he becomes schizophrenic. Dushku's Echo is imprinted with thirty-eight personalities and she simply talks through casual exposition? Poorly, poorly done. Even the editing favored Tudyk's performance. (4) The cat-and-mouse scene at the end was... non-existent. Sierra and November are imprinted as assassins and then... they're not seen again! Ballard and Boyd are able to capture Echo and take her back to the Dollhouse as Alpha escapes. (5) Why would the now fully-aware Echo willingly go back to the Dollhouse? There was pertinent scenes left on the cutting room floor. The ending of the episode was way too rushed for all that happens. (6) And this is the real kicker... the entire arc of the first season, the entire reason Alpha went psycho and killed people, the entire reason we've been watching the show... is essentially that Alpha thought Echo was hotter/better than Whisky (Dr. Saunders)? WHAT?!? I understand that, as a serial killer, Echo probably fit one of Alpha's profiles, but his actions can be reduced to mere jealousy. Whisky was getting all the attention. He thought Echo was better. So he killed a bunch of people and took off. And then came back in a ridiculously elaborate plot to steal Echo.(**) Seriously, Joss. This is first-draft material.

(**) I'm still unclear as to why Alpha stole Echo, imprinted her with the mind of an idiot, and then kidnapped a store clerk and imprinted her with Caroline's personality. What was the point of his crazy rant? Why steal all of Echo's previous imprints? Sigh...

promos of NBC's upcoming shows

2009-05-04T13:01:00.004-04:00

What is community college? You've heard it's "loser college" for remedial teens, twenty-something drop-outs, middle-aged divorcees, and old people keeping their minds active as they circle the drain of eternity.

Via Kristin at E!: NBC has picked up Joel McHale's (E!'s The Soup) pilot, Community, to series. I have to say, NBC's promotional video is top-notch. We're introduced to the major characters (Chevy Chase as a horny professor!), and the jokes are both funny and appropriate -- Jeff's limited knowledge of Spanish includes the phrase "do not scratch my car," Chevy Chase giggles at the word "Asperger's," and Ahmed breaks out with Bender's "You know what I got for Christmas? A carton of cigarettes!" speech from The Breakfast Club (as a product of the 80s, I totally geeked out). This show looks really fantastic. Joel McHale has leading man good looks and such a subtle delivery of comedy ("school-shaped toilet") that I think very few actors could pull off this role believably. He's not an outlandish character -- none of them are, really -- and the weight of realism is what will separate this show from others like Better Off Ted or Scrubs (both of which, mind you, I thoroughly enjoy). My one wish for this show is that Patricia Belcher, who is hysterical in every role she takes on, stick around as a recurring character -- and further, that she inadvertently becomes Jeff's "cosmic mentor." There's potential for greatness with that.

On a related note... NBC has promos on their other upcoming new shows: 100 Questions looks awfully cliché; Day One offers a boring behind-the-scenes look at the apocalypse; Parenthood looks like a modern, more dramatic take on the Steve Martin film of the same name(*); and Mercy, about a group of nurses, has potential (it's postfeminist in the way that Sex and the City failed to be) and I'll definitely give the premiere a shot.

(*) I feel that if this show isn't funny, it would be too uncomfortable for people to watch. Do parents really want to see the drama of being a parent mirrored back to them, or would they rather have Steve Martin in a cowboy outfit?

episode: dollhouse, "briar rose" (1.11)

2009-05-02T12:40:00.001-04:00

I recently bought a wonderful book by Dan Gilbert called Stumbling on Happiness, which essentially looks at various ways people encounter, define, and categorizes feelings and levels of happiness. (It is by no means a guide on obtaining happiness, but rather a psychoanalytic exploration into the human condition.) I just finished a section on subjectivity and happiness, and what is relevant to my review of Dollhouse is that (1) these past few episodes are superior episodes, but (2) only when comparing them to earlier episodes. I am still not convinced that Dollhouse is a good show (and deserves a second season), but I am certain that it is getting better. Instead of reviewing this episode as a stand-alone, I'm going to look at the specific issues(*) I have with the show, all of which could have been avoided if Whedon and Co. had merely written second drafts.

(*) Admittedly, I seem a lot angrier than I actually am. I do enjoy the show (well enough), and there are some good things to recommend it. I just feel like Whedon and Co. could have a much stronger show on their hands if they had thought more about the characters and less about the overall arc of the season. Well-conceived plot means very little when you're surrounded by egotistical and ever-changing characters. There's no foundation on which I should build my Care House.

1. Ballard: At the beginning of the series, I think both Agent Ballard and Boyd Langton, Echo's handler, were supposed to be the characters with whom the audience would identify. Ballard -- played, as much as I hate to admit it, kind of one-note by the otherwise fantastic Tahmoh Penikett (Helo from BSG) -- was an FBI agent seeking justice. Who wouldn't support that kind of selfless and morally righteous mission? Well, Ballard became obsessed with finding and freeing Caroline -- his own Briar Rose complex -- and lost his badge, as well as some of the moral righteousness. Ballard is now a character who is so self-involved and hellbent on finding Caroline that it's more about his sexual infatuation with her and less about the ethically-challenged purpose of the Dollhouse. As someone who does not find grotesque infatuation charming, I have to admit that my emotional attachment to this character is waning. And this thought is continued with the star-crossed pairing of...

2. Ballard and Mellie: Now, I like the idea of Mellie, but I find the actress who plays her (Miracle Laurie) to be so annoyingly sweet that she actually leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Also, the misogynistic undertones of her scenes are alarming -- especially considering this character comes from the mind of Joss Whedon, who gave us Buffy Summers and Zoë Washburne, two of the greatest representations of modern femininity. Last week, Mellie told Ballard that she would continue loving him even if he didn't love her back (though not in these words), and that she would basically allow him to take whatever he needed of her. Those are words of an emotionally abused woman, no? Of course, this statement comes after Ballard discovers she's an active doll and so the scene has a level of sadness to it -- the audience knows her love for him is an imprint, and isn't it sad that "November" won't ever know that love(**) -- but then BALLARD SLEEPS WITH HER. He has angry, passionate sex with her, and it's just downright creepy. There's nothing sad about her situation. There's nothing about this pairing that makes me root for Ballard in any way, shape, or form. Did he feel betrayed by Mellie (and by extension, the Dollhouse)? Sure. Was he angry? Yep. But he flat out took advantage of Mellie/November, and it made me physically ill.

(**) It would have been a very intriguing development if Mellie had killed herself post-Ballard's rejection. What if her handler hadn't saved her? Because he did save her, we don't really have an objection to the Dollhouse because we know that the handlers will always be there to protect the actives. But what if he hadn't saved her? What if she took pills or put a gun to her head? The show can be ethically ambiguous, that's fine, but there should be less glorification of becoming an active. We see these dolls living a wonderful, zen-like existence, free of worry or anxiety. Why wouldn't someone sign up for that? So what if Mellie had killed herself? Then the loss of subjectivity and conscious decisions become the major ethical focus.

Fast forward to this week's "Briar Rose" episode where Ballard discovers November in the sleeping pod... and then leaves her there. I'm sorry -- WHAT? Ballard is far too obsessed with freeing Caroline, a woman he hardly knows (which thus points to his infatuation being sexual), that he can't also attempt to free November? "Mellie" may be fictitious, but certainly Ballard feels some physical connection with the body who shared his apartment and his bed. Surely Ballard looks at the body of November and recognizes something familiar. Surely Ballard would opt to save her over Caroline. Surely... oh wait, no. Why? Because Ballard has been turned into a one-trick pony. He has been oversimplified and reduced to a one-track Caroline-inspired mission. And I just can't support these writing decisions. Whedon and Co. could have done so much more with his journey.

3. Eliza Dushku: I've said it before and I'll say it again. Dushku should not be center of this show. She's not a versatile actress, her delivery is almost always awkward (and can't be funny to save her life), and her body has become a site of exploitation by the good execs at FOX. Out of all of Dushku's outfits, this one pissed me off the most. (Seriously, I almost broke my TV I was so angry.) But Dushku's not entirely at fault for her general mediocrity; Caroline's a boring character to play. Seriously, the main doll -- the one that we are supposed to care about the most -- signed up for the Dollhouse because her boyfriend was killed during a save-the-lab-rats mission? Wait... she cares about animals? That's how Caroline is introduced to us? Even Mellie had a better backstory (her child died). Dushku plays Echo well with childlike simplicity, but she's not a strong enough actress to pull off a new personality every week -- and I don't think I want to spend an episode with Caroline again. At this point, I don't care if Caroline ever makes it out -- and isn't the whole point that I care about her making it out?

4. Topher-as-Xander/Wash: According to what I've read throughout these "series of tubes," everyone unanimously hates Topher. I think Topher was conceived as a Xander (Buffy) or Wash (Firefly) character. He's supposed to be manic, insecure, and offer the most comedic relief. The problem is Topher is more intellectually-insecure and less emotionally-insecure, so he just comes off as being preoccupied with himself and his own creations. Almost everything he says is either technological exposition (brain scans, imprints, etc.) or some reference to his genius. It's pathetic and it's annoying. Even last week's episode, where Sierra is imprinted to be Topher's friend, was intended to humanize him and it just reminded us why he doesn't have any friends. Like Ballard, he's too much of a one-note character. I have nothing against Fran Kranz, but he doesn't have the self-deprecation of Nicholas Brendan or the (purely genius) comedic delivery of Alan Tudyk (who should, from here on out, be cast in everything).

5. Where's the Whedon-Funny? "Briar Rose" is the first time I've laughed at an intentionally comedic moment on the show, and almost all of my laughter was a reaction to Alan Tudyk. (One particular storyline from Firefly that always makes me laugh -- "There's obeying going on right under my nose!") In fact, Tudyk as Kepler was so outright entertaining -- and do I dare say magical? -- that I was not looking forward to the inevitable upcoming twist. (I learned that Tudyk was coming on board to play the elusive Alpha, but I was so convinced of his performance as the ecologist Kepler that I hoped perhaps the internets had tricked me and Tudyk was actually signed on to play a hyper-paranoid god of comedy.) Some highlights:

Did you know Earth Day was last week? Earth gets one day.... You know what I think? I think that once we die out, in a couple hundred years, Earth is gonna have a People Day.

We're here? So soon? Let's go around the block! This is like one of those buddy-cop movies where you're the hard-boiled cop and I'm the guy who hates buddy-cop movies!

7. Without a screen surrogate (the "emotional center"), the Dollhouse is just creepy. Boyd is now the head of security -- after Dominic was sent to "the Attic" -- and now he's no longer Echo's handler. Without that paternal relationship, I have no reason to care about Boyd or Echo. And there are some rumblings that Boyd is some sort of spy, which, to me, would be a lazy justification for why a "good" guy is working for the "bad" Dollhouse. (I feel like the labeling of people and things are way too simple, and further, the constant switching back and forth between good and evil is mentally exhausting. Kind of like the Benjamin Linus debate on Lost.) So... Ballard's a sick bastard (who only cares about Caroline, for whatever unknown reason), and Boyd has been advanced in the professional ladder at the Dollhouse. I really don't know who I'm supposed to care about... or why. Is the Dollhouse creepy? Sure, I think so, but I have a Masters degree that provides me with terms like philosophical zombie, objectification (instrumentality, denial of autonomy, fungibility, dehumanization), and sentience. But the Dollhouse can be used for good (which was attempted with the "Briar Rose" story-of-the-week and certainly with Miss Lonelyheart's storyline), but it seems like the possibility of the conceived Dollhouse being good is so unanimously wrong that the writers are not going to flesh out a storyline in which we root for Adelle DeWitt. She's cold-hearted and lonely and cruel... but couldn't she be trying to make the world a better place? Couldn't she believe in that? Are we ever going to see an episode where the merits of the Dollhouse far outweigh the creepiness factor?

the only cause supported by every movie star, but one

2009-04-14T23:43:00.002-04:00

The Only Cause Supported By Every Movie Star (But One)
Powered by Cracked.com

ron moore Q&A about the BSG finale

2009-03-21T02:36:00.011-04:00

I will write my thoughts on the Battlestar Galactica finale (as soon as I go through two more boxes of tissues and accept the fact that the greatest thing to ever happen to me is over)... but in the meantime, I have pasted a Q&A that Alan Sepinwall had with Ron Moore, both one-on-one and also at a Sci-Fi screening. Details are below. Do NOT read if you haven't seen the finale!!! Also, any use of the word "I" should be read as Sepinwall. There are some VERY interesting thoughts on how music plays an "eternal" role for humanity.

After Sci Fi Channel screened the "Battlestar Galactica" series finale for the press on Monday evening, there was a brief press conference featuring producers Ronald D. Moore and David Eick, and stars Mary McDonnell and Edward James Olmos. Later in the evening, I asked Moore some additional questions about the finale. After the jump, some highlights from the press conference (really only from Moore and Eick), and then a transcript of the solo interview with Moore. To read my review of the finale, click here.

Post-finale press conference

(On what the second Kara actually was, and whether we all went down a rabbit hole when we assumed that Kara was the daughter of Daniel the missing eighth Cylon)

Moore: Daniel was definitely a rabbit hole, and it was an unintentional rabbit hole, to be honest... (Daniel) was always intended to be an interesting bit of backstory about Cavil, as a Cain and Abel allegory. And people started seizing on it as some major part of the mythology... and it was never intended to take that kind of load-bearing weight.

Eick: It's kind of like Boxey in that way.

Moore: It's exactly like Boxy. Kara, I think, is whatever you want her to be. It's easy to put that label on her: Angel, or Messenger of God, or whatever. Kara Thrace died and was resurrected and came back and took the people to their final end. That was her role, her destiny on the show... We debated back and forth in the writers' room for a while on giving it more definition, and saying, definitively, "This is what she is," and we decided that the more you try to outline it and give voice to it and put a name on it, the less interesting it became. We just decided this was the most interesting way to go out, with her disappearing without trying to name what she was.

(On whether any of the Cavils, Simons or Dorals survived the attack on the Colony)

Moore: The final (edit) came out a little less clear on that level than I sort of intended... The idea was that when Racetrack hits the nukes, they smack into the Colony and it takes it out of the stream swirling around the singularity, and it fell in (to the singularity) and was torn apart. But as we were cutting the show for time, and taking out frames, one of the things that became less apparent was that the Colony was doomed. The intention was that everyone aboard the Colony perished.

(On when and why he decided to have the fleet wind up discovering our Earth in the distant past)

Moore: We decided that a couple of years ago... I don't think we ever had a version of the show where they wound up in the future, or the present. Those didn't seem as interesting. In the early going, we started talking about the fact that we would see a lot of contemporary things in the show, from language to wardrobe to all kinds of production design. That only made sense to us if a lot of the things we see in the show you feel are taken from our contemporary world were actually from their world and spread through the eons and came to us through the collective unconscious, or from (what Lee said about) "We will give them the best part of ourselves."

Eick: There was a time we were talking about, "They land and there are pterodactyls and tyrannosaurus rex." But it was the idea that they were part of the genis of humankind, and this seemed the more affordable way to do it than going "Jurassic Park."

Moore: The image of Six walking through Times Square, we came up with a long time ago.

(On what happened to destroy the original Earth)

Moore: The backstory of the original Earth was supposed to be that the 13th tribe of Cylons came to that world, started over, and essentially destroyed themselves. There was some internecine warfare among the Cylons themselves that was supposed to be another repetition in the cycle of "All this has happened before and all will happen again." Even they, who were the rebels and split off, left to their own devices, there was enough of humanity left in them that they destroyed themselves.

(On why Cavil killed himself)

Moore: Cavil killing himself came from Dean Stockwell, to be honest. As scripted, in that climactic battle in CIC, Tigh was going to grab Cavil and fling him over the edge of the upper level, and he was going to fall to his death. Dean called me himself and said, "I just really think that in that moment, Cavil would realize the jig is up and it's all hopeless and just put a gun in his mouth and shoot himself." And I just said, "Okay."

(On the history of "All Along the Watchtower" in the "Galactica" universe)

Moore: The notion is that the music, the lyrics, the composition is something divine, it's eternal. It's something that lives in the collective unconscious of the show, it's a musical theme that repeats itself. It crops up in unexpected places, and people hear it, or pluck it out of the ether. It's sort of a connection of the divine and the mortal -- music is something that people literally catch out of the air... Here is a song that transcends many different aeons and cultures across the star, and was reinvented by one Mr. Bob Dylan.

Eick: It was a simple way to communicate the idea clearly that this is not the future. This is the story of a culture that gave birth to ours. There was an episode in season one in which Helo and Sharon are running for their lives and they hole up in a diner, and there's a Cylon centurion cornering them, and for the longest time we planned to have an old jukebox in the diner that would play, "Yesterday," or whatever we could afford.

Moore: Probably not "Yesterday."

Eick: Okay, something from The Guess Who. I think we felt it was too soon, and would confuse things. It would be so non-specific that people would just be thrown by it. But we were thinking about it that far back, that music would be a great way to tell the audience about the cyclical theme... All the colloquialisms and slang that you hear, and how people interrelate... we get that from them, not the other way around.

(On whether Head Six and Head Baltar are angels or demons)

Moore: I think they're both. We never tried to name exactly what the head characters were, we never looked at them as angels or demons. They seemed to periodically say good things or evil things, to save people or to damn people. There was a sense that they worked in the service of something else... that was guiding and helping, sometimes obstructing, sometimes tempting. The idea at the end was that whatever they're in service of is eternal and continues, and whatever they are, they too are still around, with all of us who are the children of Hera. They continue to walk among us and watch.

Ron Moore interview

When I talked to you at summer TCA, I ran through that checklist of unanswered questions.

Oh, yeah! What do you think?

You nailed pretty much every one. I think people are going to debate about Kara.

I accept that. I knew, when I decided this was as much as we were going to say about Kara, I said, "People are going to be pissed."

I don't want to spend too much time on Daniel, but did you realize that you were giving Kara's father this name that was so similar to Daniel?

That I had no idea. I only found that out online. I went, "Is that true? I guess it is." It's one of those things where you're inside the show and doing it, you don't realize that people are going to seize on this detail and it gets a life of its own. When I saw that stuff spreading online, I was really astonished. "Really? Daniel? They're obsessed with Daniel." So I started telling every interviewer, "Please tell people not to focus on Daniel, because they're really going to be disappointed."

This was a very dark, very bleak show, that had, for the most part, a happy ending. Were you ever tempted to go the dark way? Why did you decide to end it the way you did tonally?

I guess I always assumed it was going to end on some sort of note of salvation -- that they would find a home and be okay, at least some of them. I didn't want to end the series like "Beneath the Planet of the Apes," with the destruction of everybody. Although that's what Eddie wanted to do. Eddie kept pitching me that they come to Earth in contemporary times, and everyone's cheering and happy, and cut to the White House and the President goes, "Nuke 'em!" And they destroy Galactica -- cut to credits. And people say I'm dark!

I was literally never tempted to go that way. I always felt that however brutal the show was, and how bleak it felt in moments, it was never nihilistic. It was never about saying that people are irredeemable. It was about trying to be honest about people, saying, "Look at us. We are capable of all these things. Really good people do horrible things and horrible people do good things."

Given how often you used the show to comment on current events or, at least, draw current events in the show, do you feel that the finale in any way speaks to what's happening now?

Only in the sense of where it finally ends up in the very end: the robotics and where we are about to be technologically. I just saw something the other day with a scientist saying we're going to have a true (artificial intelligence) within five years or something crazy. Or these Japanese robots that look like the woman in the finale, they're getting more currency. It's been an old saw in science fiction for a long time, since Frankenstein, that we're going to create life that's going to turn on us. Well, we're right there, and we should probably really think about these things and understand the door we're about to go through.

I'm curious about a few characters' final fates. You very easily could have gotten away with Helo sacrificing his life so Athena could go after Hera, but they got the happy ending in the end.

There were two things. One, originally when we were breaking the story, Athena and Helo were both going to die to save Hera. And then I felt sort of unsatisfied about that. I really wanted that family unit to survive to the end. So in the script, when Helo gets shot in the corridor and he's left, I didn't intend it to be a cliffhanger of "is he going to die?" I just kept writing it, and there wasn't a moment to establish he was okay. And when Tahmoh read the script, he got that point and said, "Oh, (bleep), I'm dead." And when he got to the end, he was surprised.

And then it becomes this tearjerking moment when you see the three of them off in the distance (on Africa) and you realize he survived and they're intact.

And when Tahmoh had that reaction, I decided, "Well, now I definitely don't want to establish that he's okay," because I wanted people to have that same reaction.

Well, did anyone else almost die and then you gave them a reprieve in the end?

We did talk, for a long time, that Adama and Laura were going to get in a Raptor together and fly off into the stars, and Adama was going to show her the universe, and that would be the last we see of them. And before I ever even wrote it, Mary got wind of that and called me and said, "You know what? In our very first conversation about the show, we agreed Laura would die. I feel it's important to actually show it," and I said she was absolutely right, so she died on camera and Adama lived on camera.

Because when he said goodbye to Lee like that, I assumed he was going to wait for Laura to die and then crash the Raptor or something.

I knew people would have that reaction.

So he's going to be like Tyrol, just live off by himself?

He's going to build that little cabin, and who knows what.

Aaron Douglas keeps saying, "Well, you know what? They're going to get a message. Someone's going to trudge up the hill to Adama and hand him a note, saying, 'Tyrol needs you in Scotland!' And Adama will put on his pack and go off to Scotland!"

Given how much of the show was made up on the fly by you and the other writers, looking back, how well do you think everything hangs together with the finale factored into it?

I think it hangs together better than it has any right to. I do feel good that the process I always believed in and really defended -- about feeling the story instinctively as you go through it, and not being tied to, "Oh, we know exactly how it's going to end up" -- that that was true. We were able to get there and could say, "We've been making this mosaic, and now we just need to put the final touches on it and we'll have a complete picture." There's loose threads and things that don't quite work, but I think that's in the nature of almost any show. By and large, I think we did a pretty good job of it.

The thing I wonder about is the head characters and how (important they were). There's that moment at the end where Caprica Six says something like, "That's it? You just needed us to carry Hera into that room and protect her?"

Well, if you look over the life of the show, they certainly did more than that. But ultimately, that was the key moment that makes everything else possible.

Some of what Head Six is doing is keeping Baltar alive and free, but when she's encouraging him to start the cult, and get the cult armed and all that, is that just her screwing around for her own amusement?

No, I think that she's moving him towards an acceptance of the divine. Baltar could not make that speech in CIC unless he had gone through a religious conversion. If he didn't have a belief in something greater than himself, he couldn't have made that argument to Cavil in that moment.

episode: lost, "namaste" (5.9)

2009-03-19T16:04:00.002-04:00

Some quick thoughts on this week's Lost episode, "Namaste."

• Interesting role reversal with Sayid, eh? In Season 1, Sayid interrogated Sawyer about Shannon's asthma inhaler (which he didn't have) and did some excruciating things to Sawyer's fingernails, and here, Sawyer gets to play Pretend Interrogator. Of course, Sayid's not in any real danger with Sawyer, but the irony was not lost on the viewers. Also, Sayid interrogated Ben (as Henry Gale) at the Swan back in Season 2, and now Ben has come to offer Sayid (as prisoner) a sandwich. (Was the "I didn't use mustard" line some sort of code from the Others? Surely Ben has already interacted with the Others at this point.)

• For those of you worried about Sawyer being a victim of the Purge, it doesn't happen until 1992. I don't think death by genocide is a real concern of his, and I can understand why he dismisses Hurley's paranoia about the event -- it doesn't happen for another fifteen or so years.

• Sawyer's always been the leading type, but we needed to get rid of the "reactionary" leaders like Jack, Locke, Sayid, Ana Lucia, and Ben in order for him to come to front of the line. I don't think this is an existential character development (as in, Sawyer burns his letter to the real Sawyer, the man who killed his family, and then takes a new name, James LeFlour, as a way of reinventing a new alias for a new life of redemption). I think it's much less interesting than that, but just as satisfying. As Sawyer tells Jack, he's a thinker. Thinkers don't order other people to do "what's best right now." They think ahead in long-term planning.

• Speaking of Sawyer, how amazing was it that Sawyer didn't use Kate or violence as a means of insulting Jack? Those are both barbaric and primal means of competition that work on a two-dimensional level of a now fully fleshed out three-dimensional character. Calling Jack reactionary cuts a lot deeper than perhaps Sawyer even realizes. Jack likes to fix things (as we all know too well by now), and not only did people die because of Jack's reactionary decisions, but Jack lost Kate and his job to alcoholism, and as a doctor, he always took it personally when he couldn't save people. Calling Jack "reactionary" was spot on. And the self-professed comparison of Sawyer to Winston Churchill, who played the ever-important role of a wartime Prime Minister, was especially profound. This scene was the best part of the episode, mostly because it showed Sawyer's layers. He's not just a brute. I always thought it was contradictory that this one-note character made so many cultural and historical references, and even though he read during a lot of his time on the island, I never understood -- until now -- how these things were interrelated. He was a vengeful character, but only when it came to finding and killing Sawyer*. Now he doesn't have a reason to be angry, and he's settled quite nicely into a domestic space with Juliet.

* Now that he has moved on from Vengeful Sawyer to Domestic LaFleur, should we start calling him Jim now? "Sawyer" just doesn't seem to fit anymore.

• In relation to this scene, I think Jack is only momentarily accepting Sawyer's position as the one who's calling the shots. I think that next week, "Reactionary Jack" will do something to undermine Sawyer's well-thought out plan, and Kate will join because she, too, is reactionary... oh, and because she likes to screw things up. (Quick mention: I appreciated how little screen time Ms. Austin had this week.)

• On that note, I always thought that out of the original love triangle -- Jack, Kate, Sawyer -- that Sawyer would be the one to die. His archetype called for it. The bruting, hypermasculine character sacrifices himself for the woman he loves, and the greatest selfless sacrifice one can make is to die on their behalf. But after realizing that (1) Sawyer already made this sacrifice by jumping out of the helicopter so that Kate can be rescued and that (2) he also redeemed himself by settling down with Juliet, perhaps it is Jack who is the archetype slated to die. Jack definitely needs a moment of redemption. I think he's starting to realize how much he's screwed everything up...

• We finally meet Radzinsky! Here's a quick refresher on Radzinsky... we first learned about him in a Desmond flashback where Kelvin explains the procedure of entering the code into the Swan station's computer. Radzinsky used to be Kelvin's partner, that is, before Radzinsky shot himself in the head (and left a big ol' blood stain on the ceiling). So not only did Radzinsky live in Kelvin (though I'm still uncertain if they were under lockdown because of "the sickness" -- what information did these guys have in the Swan, which was obviously in operation after The Purge?), but he was also the architect behind building the Swan. While living with Kelvin in the Swan, he was able to figure out how to mimic lockdown procedure and began creating the blast door map, which he worked on with the aid of his photographic memory. Radzinsky was also the one responsible for editing the Swan orientation video, and we later find out (in the Arrow station, I believe) what was edited out of the video. Eko finds the missing film strip, and Locke then splices the frames back together. This new clip reveals that the computer should only be used for inputting the code and not for contacting the outside world. Why Radzinsky took it out (and how it ended up at the Arrow station, and why the computer's only function is for inputting the code, and why the code needs to be entered at all*) is still unexplained.

* I thought that perhaps entering the code had something to do with the burial of Jughead so close to the electro-magnetic center of the island, but Jughead was buried in the 50s or 60s and the Swan wasn't built until the late 70s. Were people "entering a code" somewhere else on the island previous to the Swan station, or did something happen in the 70s that required the task of entering the code?

• On the note of Radzinsky, Alan Sepinwall notes, "He had been Kelvin's partner at The Swan before Desmond, and painted the map of all the Dharma stations on the blast doors. Assuming that one of The Others didn't assume Radzinsky's name after the purge, then The Swan was still technically under Dharma control in the 21st century, which might help explain why Dharma planes were still doing supply drops after the Oceanic 815 crash." I had been wondering about those drops, and this makes a lot of sense. But again, why were Radzinsky and Kelvin out of the communication loop from the rest of Dharma? Or did Radzinsky know about the Purge (and that's why he shot himself) and made up a story about a "sickness"?

• Where is Faraday? I don't think he's dead. My guess is that he found a way to travel back to the current era -- I mean, our Losties have to make it back to 2009 somehow -- but I am curious, judging by Sawyer's reaction to Faraday's whereabouts, did Faraday still try to alter the future (re: Charlotte)? Even with the time-is-a-record theory, we know that Faraday still tries to convince child-Charlotte to leave the island. But I'm wondering if he goes even further than that, if he somehow physically removes Charlotte from her situation? Knowing that Charlotte searches for the island because she remembered it and wanted to prove her mother wrong, does this alter how Faraday interacts with Charlotte's mother?

• Annoyance of the week: Still, nobody's talking to one another. A simple "Locke said he'd bring you back" isn't a sufficient exchange for Sawyer understanding how Jack, Kate, Hurley, and Sayid return to the freaking 70s. Nobody wonders why or how they're in the 70s, and Jack isn't curious as to why Sawyer and Juliet stayed on the island for the past three years? (I mean, honestly, if I had been through what these guys have, I would get the hell off that island ASAP. Speaking of, why is Miles still on the island? What convinced him to stay?) Also, if I were Jack, Kate, and Hurley, I would be asking SO MANY questions about Dharma -- who they were, all of the stations that exist, what each of the stations are for, who is charge, etc. I would also ask if Sawyer had run into Smokey (or any other island booby traps) or Rousseau in the last three years. Come on, guys. This isn't a high school reunion. When thrown into a new situation, you need to ask questions.

• Continued annoyance of the week: I still don't understand why the 06ers had to return to the island. Jacob/Christian/the island better have a good explanation for why they had to come back. For Locke, the island told him to jump, so he did without asking questions. "I need to bring back these people who don't trust me and are living their old lives again? Sure, no problem!" And for Ben, there really hasn't been a good explanation for his interest in returning to the island. (I definitely think he killed Penny and exacted revenge on Widmore and is now ready to come back to the island, but did he needs the 06ers in order to return to the island? Could he not have "gone back" on his own?) And NONE of the 06ers have a good reason for coming back. They didn't know about the time flashes. Locke just told them they had to go back with no real explanation why. The only people who can explain this are Christian, Jacob, and Eloise -- and my money is on Eloise. Someone has to convince Desmond to go back to the island, and my best bet is, after discovering that Penny was killed (or injured) by Ben, he seeks out Eloise and she tells him what he needs to do next... and hopefully provide some exposition along the way.

• I appreciate the following quote from Isaac_Spaceman over at Throwing Things: "My favorite part, of course, was LaFleur going meta and delivering the audience's verdict on Jack's leadership. I never was a Sawyer fan (he always seemed like the stock TV renegade to me, a half-step removed from Lorenzo Lamas), but the Churchill-emulating LaFleur, with a long-con man's respect for the setup, is dramatically more interesting than either the old Sawyer or the eternal Jack. Because I like where LaFleur is now, personally and professionally, I'll be sorry to see the romantic tension over the next few weeks and the inevitable escalating pissing match with Jack over the next season and a half, but the last few episodes have been nice for both the character and the actor."

• From commenter Russ over at Throwing Things: "I presume that Hurley or another 815 survivor plays a role in selecting the numbers for the Swan's "botton"? Will we learn that the musician who programmed the code in The Looking Glass was also a time-displaced survivor? I've assumed for a while that it was Charlie, but of course bringing Charlie back would require more than simple time travel. Unless, of course, Charlie is (1) Charles Widmore or (2) the son of Des and Penny or (3) both."

Overall, this was a decent enough episode. It seemed to be a narrative filler, though -- as in, they needed to dedicate an episode to explaining how the 06ers are integrated into Dharma life. But it was also a bit of a creepy episode. There was a lot of foreshadowing (is it really foreshadowing if we're in the past looking at the future, but we know about the future because we experienced it as the present? is there another literary term for time-travel foreshadowing?) regarding unfortunate events in the future: eight-year-old Ben (who is on board for the next few episodes), baby Ethan (Juliet's reaction was PRICELESS), and Hurley's mentioning of the Purge. Since Sayid hasn't been around for Faraday's time-travel theorizing, will Sayid try to kill the young Ben? What ramifications will that have? (He can't die, of course, if Lost is going to be consistent with their time travel theory.) How will the 06ers try to alter the past so that the future does not unfold like it does?

film news: march 2009

2009-03-18T19:43:00.005-04:00

• The Movie Blog gives us a look at the new Spike Jonze Where the Wild Things Are movie poster. I can't remember the last time I've been so excited about a movie. (And no, Watchmen was never a site for geekiness for me.)

• Via Film School Rejects: Watchmen Legos!

• The Movie Blog reports Linda Hamilton will offer her voice for Terminator Salvation. Hopefully it's as mind-bendy as her classic voiceover in the first movie.

• According to Cinematical, Time Traveler's Wife will be released August 14th. It's about time. (Ha!)

• I Watch Stuff reports: "Natalie Portman and Brad Pitt have signed on to star in an adaptation of the Leanne Shapton lengthy-titled book Important Artifacts and Personal Property from the Collection of Lenore Doolan and Harold Morris, Including Books, Street Fashion, and Jewelry. Romantic comedy just got incredibly pretentious." As much as I love long titles, this one's not doing much for me, and I think the mock suggestion for Bidding on the Heart as a title is both hilarious and appropriate.

• Via Cinematical: Seriously? Seats with synchronized motion? I understand the importance of "dreaming of a better tomorrow," but can't this tomorrow involve a cure for cancer instead of a needless toy intended to generate more money for the culture industry? (Thanks, Adorno!)

• Film School Rejects give Best Worst Movie, a documentary about the adoration of Troll 2, an A+. I have been waiting forever this documentary to come out, so hopefully it will find wide distribution after SXSW.

• Cinematical is irritated by Sci-Fi's switch to Syfy. I concur. It's a stupid name, and it's insulting to sci-fi fans. (Not to go all Adorno on you again, but the Sci-Fi channel can't really trademark a genre... it's always about money, isn't it?)

• Screen Rant has a look at David Fincher's new animated film, The Goon. My favorite part of the film's press release? "There is a heavy slant on the paranormal." The poster looks pretty awesome.

Away We Go trailer, starring John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph
• As if the sudden surge in remakes and sequels isn't frustrating enough, I Watch Stuff explains that Chris Rock will be remaking Death at a Funeral. You know, that movie that came out in 2007 (!!!).

• Speaking of remakes, will Rihanna and Channing Tatum fill the shoes of Whitney Houston and Kevin Costner is a remake of The Bodyguard? This is one of the few remakes I'm actually okay with. My main problem is that studios are remaking GOOD films simply because they're older (The Day the Earth Stood Still, ahem). I'm fine with them remaking bad movies. And let's be honest, guys, The Bodyguard is not a good movie. You know what other movies are bad? Pretty Woman (it's sexism masquerading as female empowerment!) and Ghost.

• Film Junk had a poll for Best Time Travel Movie, and Back to the Future came out on top with 45% of the votes, followed by 12 Monkeys (15.6%), Terminator 2 (11.8%), and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure is in 5th place with 4.3%. I think Bill and Ted's should higher, and as much as I love Back to the Future, 12 Monkeys is a perfect science-fiction film.

sepinwall: BSG and the UN panel discussion on human rights

2009-03-18T17:45:00.008-04:00

In lieu of writing on last Friday's BSG episode, "Daybreak," I am copying and pasting Alan Sepinwall's breakdown of the BSG/United Nations panel discussion.

Last night, I had one of the coolest/geekiest experiences of my career, as I got to attend a panel discussion on "Battlestar Galactica" at the United Nations' Economic and Social Council Chamber, featuring Edward James Olmos, Mary McDonnell and producers Ron Moore and David Eick and several UN reps, moderated by Whoopi Goldberg.

Sci Fi Channel went to the trouble of dressing up every seat in the room with placards designating the 12 Colonies. Caprica, naturally, was the primo seating area. I wound up getting a very good view but a very uninspiring colony by sitting in the Leonis section. At first, we wondered if they were maybe pre-existing props from the series (maybe from season one's "Colonial Day"), but the corners weren't cropped, and a friend who used to work on the show pointed out that for that to be true, someone would have needed to know this event would be happening before production wrapped almost a year ago so they could be saved, and that's unlikely. By the end of the evening, a lot of the placards had disappeared into people's bags.

Three things to keep in mind before I get to summarizing the event:

1. The evening was as much about the UN as about "Battlestar Galactica," if not moreso. There were four segments, devoted to issues like human rights, terrorism, and children and armed conflict. After a clip reel illustrating how the series at one point or another tackled that issue, the UN rep gave a long speech discussing the current state of that problem in our world, often making a token attempt at best to connect their subject to the show. Then Whoopi tried her best to balance discussing the issue currently and discussing it in the context of "BSG." Some of the panelists admittedly had never watched the show before they were invited to do the event, and some of the subjects had only a tangential connection at best ("BSG" really only dealt with kids and human trafficking in "Black Market"), and it felt like a lot of the night was an attempt to introduce "BSG" fans to issues that the UN deals with as opposed to introducing the geo-politically-inclined to "BSG."

2. Eddie Olmos likes to talk. The guy's opinionated, and he's passionate, and he'll go on a while. (Whoopi had to cut him off a few times.) But he also has a sense of self-deprecation about it. "You should've never invited me here," he admitted, right before he went on a rant about his hatred of the concept of referring to different ethnic groups as "races." (Said rant climaxed with him leading the crowd in a call-and-response of "So say we all!")

3. Considering 1 & 2, Whoopi did a very good job. Obviously, part of her job on "The View" is to try to maintain control of a chaotic discussion among strong personalities, and she's an unabashed sci-fi fangirl, so she was well-suited to keeping the conversation moving and trying to find a balance between "BSG" talk and UN talk.

Human Rights

We started off with clips of Kara torturing Leoben in "Flesh and Bone," then The Circle conducting their executions in "Collaborators," and then Lee's speech in "Crossroads, Part 2" about how they've become a gang. Craig Mokhiber, Deputy Director of the New York office of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, seemed the most plugged-in to the show of all the UN reps, making several references to the show -- "We are all Cylons," he said at one point, while discussing the idea that we dehumanize our enemies to allow ourselves to do horrible things to them, "Every one of us is a Cylon, and every one of us is a Colonial."

Moore and Eick talked a lot about Leoben getting waterboarded, and Eick noted that they went out of their way to make it ambiguous whether he actually had the nuke Kara was looking for, which made it even harder to get on her side as she tortured him.

This segment is when Eddie's rant about race happened, because Mokhiber quoted the founding documents of the human rights office in his speech, and it contained references to different races. When the mic got turned back to Mokhiber a few minutes later, he seemed mortified and went out of his way to explain that the document he was quoting was 60 years old, and featured other outmoded terminology like referring to the two "sexes." And he said he would support any effort to get that language changed.

"When a bug doesn't like you," Eddie said in response to the offer, "that's racism."

"That is so deep, I'm going to take a question (from the audience) now," Whoopie interjected.

There were a few hundred NYC high school students in the crowd, and they were occasionally allowed to ask questions, starting with one about whether our current obsession with technology could lead to the creation of actual Cylons. Moore cleverly brought this back on topic by noting that we're a few years away from actual artificial intelligence, and that there's going to come a point where we have to decide whether to extend human rights to artifical but self-aware creations.

Children and Armed Conflict

Again, this one had very little connection to the show, and the UN rep, Radhika Coomerswamy, admitted she had only watched a couple of episodes to prep for the panel, and was pleasantly surprised to find it was "a deeply moral show" and not just a showcase for special effects.

Whoopi adroitly picked up on some of Coomerswamy's stories about horrific things done to young girls in war-torn countries and used that to spin the discussion around to gender on "Galactica." Moore and Eick talked for a while about how, once they made Starbuck a woman, they decided they wanted her to not be the first female Viper jock, but one of many, in a gender-neutral society, in which all the female officers were called "sir," and in which gender-related epithets were never used. (The closest they came, they admitted, was whenever someone would dismiss Laura Roslin as "a schoolteacher.")

One of the student questions went back to the human rights discussion, asking Mary whether she thought that Roslin was committing crimes when she threw people out of airlocks. Mary said she did, and that it troubled her personally, but that in character, she was absolutely committed to the belief that it was necessary.

"Mary can say she was haunted by airlocking," said Eick, "But she was the one who made it a verb."

Eddie noted that they had deliberately made Laura "the 214th person in line to get this job," and Mary, mock indignant, interrupted to check with Moore that she was, in fact, the 43rd person in line for it.

After another monologue about whether the UN should intercede with the problems in Mexico, Eddie talked about how he as Adama never listened to Roslin on military-related decisions, "And that was a mistake." Moore said they wanted to explore how fragile the law is at times of war, and Eick noted, "You get a brief glimpse into the dynamics of the set when you hear Mary refer to the President as 'Laura,' and Eddie refers to the Admiral as 'I.'"

Terrorism

Whoopi noted that we were running way behind at this point, so the last two segments were briefer than the first two.

The clip reel, not surprisingly, focused on the New Caprica arc and Roslin and Saul Tigh's debate about suicide bombing. Moore said he wanted Tigh to have a strategic rationale for ordering the bombings, that it would be much more frightening if he was logical than if he was crazy.

Reconciliation and Dialogue Among Civilizations and Faiths

There was a lot of talk here about the decision to make the Cylons (the ostensible villains) the monotheists and the humans the polytheists. Moore said it happened almost by accident. He was writing a Caprica Six scene in the miniseries and, on a whim, had her say, "God is love," and a Sci Fi Channel executive liked the line and told him to run with it.

"The network wanted more religious tension," said Eick. "How often do you hear that?"

"Other than on my show," said Whoopi.

They started wrapping up. Moore said that he wanted the show to entertain, but also to make people think -- that even if people came out of episodes like "Flesh and Bone" or "Occupation" with the same beliefs they had when they went in, "at least you thought about it."

Eddie talked about the incredible journey, how they made 84 hours of television. There are some shows or movies that you spend time watching, or working on, where you might regret those lost hours when you're on your deathbed, and he didn't think either those who watched or worked on this show would feel that way.

Mary said she felt "honored to have participated in such profound simplicity," and she and Eddie both expressed their gratitude for being able to participate in an event like this.

website: film in the blanks

2009-03-17T18:02:00.007-04:00

At Film the Blanks, this artist, John Taylor, has created these abstract movie poster homages. I will post the film titles in a couple of days, but in the meantime, see if you can figure out which film they belong to. It's surprising how you can still recognize an image even as abstract as these are. Eventually, there will be a shop where you can purchase limited edition, signed screen prints of selected "blanks." My fingers are crossed for some of the Kubrick prints!

Thanks to Mattson Tomlin for the heads up!

intense public guerrilla marketing posters

2009-03-16T18:19:00.006-04:00

Thanks to Carrie for these intense public guerrilla marketing posters. See the others at the Web Urbanist website.

Witness Against Torture Elevator Ad
An otherwise blank set of elevator doors features two sets of fingers peeking out from the seam, as if someone inside is trying to escape. Once you’re inside the elevator you see the owner of those fingers: a man in a prison jumpsuit and leg-cuffs. Witness Against Torture, a human rights group, used this ad to campaign for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

Feed SA Shopping Cart Posters
You’d have to have a heart of stone to avoid being affected by the images of poor, starving children sitting in the bottom of your shopping cart. Any food placed in the shopping cart appear to be delivered right into the needy child’s hands. Feed SA, a South African charity dedicated to feeding disadvantaged people, put these decals in shopping carts and saw a marked increase in donations and a significant boost in website traffic.

Anti-Smoking Stick-Ons
Tailpipe smoke is gross… and the same goes for the carcinogen-loaded clouds that erupt from the mouth of a cigarette smoker. An anti-smoking group equated the two by placing posters of people’s faces with the cut-out mouths strategically placed at the end of tailpipes.

episode: kings, "goliath" (1.1)

2009-03-16T01:03:00.000-04:00

For the most part, I enjoyed the series premiere of Kings, a modernist update to the David and Goliath/rise of King David Biblical account set in a parallel Manhattan, known as Shiloh (in the country of Gilboa), that is ruled by a recently developed monarchy. I enjoyed the acting well enough -- Ian McShane was amazing, but he's amazing in pretty much everything, so that comment is both obligatory and obvious. The actor who plays David, Chris Eagan, is a decent actor (although I didn't like the scene, I enjoyed his delivery of "You want blood? Come and take it!" while carrying the bloody sheet his brother recently died on), but he is a little too pretty boy for me. His face doesn't have any wrinkles, and his eyes are very small, so I only ever caught two expressions from him: either confused/unhappy (furrowed brow) or happy (smiling). The actor playing the king's son Jack, Sebastian Stan (who is apparently Leighton Meester's boyfriend), was phenomenal. The conversation where Daddy King berates him for his homosexuality nightlife is terrifying, but only because there was such animosity and disgust, such horror on Stan's face, it was a wonderfully acted scene. But the real reason to watch this show is for the cinematography. The look of the show is brilliant. The muted, monochromatic tones really allowed for the (predictable) crown of butterflies to really pop against the background. It has a real gritty feeling to it, and for a show that's focusing on politics in Biblical measures, the audience needs gritty.

And now for the things I didn't like. I understand that the Bible is the main source for this narrative, but did they have to be so obvious with it? First of all, Gilboa is the location where Saul and his son Jonathan, David's possible lover (in the same ambiguity of Achilles/Patroklos), were killed in battle. And the city Shiloh was a place of assembly for the people of Israel. David's brother (the one who dies) is named Eli, possibly after the Israelite Judge who lived and judged in Shiloh. The only thing I can remember worthy of noting is that Eli's sons were cursed because of "bad behavior" (the Bible is very loose on what constitutes bad behavior... drunkenness of Noah, anyone?). And King Silas (Ian McShane's character) was a leading member (Silvanus) of the first Christian community in Jerusalem, and he accompanied Paul on some of his missionary journeys. I don't know of any significance of naming the king Silas except that it's a name from the Bible. And lastly, there's David. Shepherd. SHEPHERD! As if Jack Shephard wasn't over the top, we now have David Shepherd, with the correct spelling and everything?

There was one particular line near the beginning of the show (possibly after the first commercial break in the two-hour pilot) that I chuckled at, but that was before I knew how blatantly Biblical this episode would be. After a secretary lists off the food items for the banquet, King Silas's wife (I don't know yet if she has the title of queen in this setup) tells her to take lamb off the menu. Get it? The lamb of God? Of course you got it. Everybody got it. But I think what irritated me the most about the obvious Biblical references is that they didn't update David's slingshot. Technically, he didn't use a slingshot to kill Goliath -- a military tank* -- but he attached a grenade to a wrench and slung it at the tank. Little weapon, big enemy. Okay, but couldn't he have used something more creative? We're introduced to David as a mechanic who can "fix anything." Why couldn't he come up with some sort of Macgyver gizmo? Not only was the war aspect of the episode way, way too short (seriously, only ten minutes?), but David's defeat of the tank was over so quickly. And it didn't seem like David faced much opposition during it. He cuts open a tent, and there's no one there to greet him? Didn't we see armed guards hanging around that tent? I had no time to really understand (1) why the Goliaths were undefeatable, (2) why David took it upon himself to suddenly go after the tank and/or the hostages (as far he knew, there was no good reason to attempt a lone rescue operation, that was expressly forbidden, for hostages he didn't know), or (3) what the war was really about. So the whole "David Slays Goliath" was over too quickly for me to understand the importance of this brave deed. Yes, yes; David does admit to his dying brother that standing up to the Goliath (at the point the picture was taken) was a moment of surrender and not bravery, but certainly he understands that going in to the enemy's camp without any gear is considered heroic. I don't think the "confession" scene was all that convincing.

* The name "Goliath" was attributed to a series of tanks from the country of Gath, but in this analogy, the war is Goliath. There is not one tank that David defeats; there are many. Those tanks are symbols of the war, and at the end of the pilot, David does indeed stop the war. Originally, I was annoyed that the tanks were named Goliath because it was too obvious, but I'm pleased that they took that reference one step further.

I shall watch it again next Sunday, but they need to ease up on the references, explain the setup of their government, and flesh David's character out a bit more.

fun with graphs

2009-03-15T23:26:00.007-04:00

I hope to put up my thoughts on Battlestar's Series Finale (part one) and the series premiere of Kings eventually, but in the meantime, waste your time the way I have -- by reading hilarious charts. [Via Graph Jam.]

("Gummi Bears, bouncing here and there and everywhere...")

christopher campbell's ten defenses for howard the duck

2009-03-12T10:44:00.000-04:00

Christopher Campbell offers ten defenses for Howard the Duck, as if this gem actually needs defending. (Yes, yes it does.) And yes, that is the entirety of the movie above. Watch at the risk of too much ridiculous awesomeness.

1. It’s No Longer the Worst Lucasfilm Production

Take your pick — there’s The Phantom Menace or there’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, either of which could certainly take the prize for being the worst movie to come from George Lucas in his 40 years producing films. Well, maybe not worse than More American Graffiti. But both films were far bigger creative and franchise disappointments than Howard the Duck (financial success is another story, of course), and so they have a relative sort of wretchedness that places them in the bottom of Lucas’ Sarlacc pit of a career. Even if you’re one of those defend-to-the-end Star Wars fanboys who will argue the pros of Menace, at least then consider Willow to be worse than Howard the Duck. The blatant Lord of the Rings rip-off has its historical relevance, but looking back on it now, it’s even more dated than Howard. And regardless of how groundbreaking it was, Willow’s visual effects don’t hold up quite as well as Howard’s old-fashioned, and oft-celebrated craftsmanship. But that’s another point…

2. The Special Effects Are Technically Brilliant

3. The Duck Suit is Still Better Than Most CGI

4. Parallels, Puns and Playful Philosophy

Some fans of the original Howard the Duck comics could argue that the duck suit is hardly the worst offense of unfaithfulness. Other complaints might be the alteration of Beverly’s career or the occasional sacrifice of the comic’s tone in order to pander to younger audiences. But real sticklers may take issue with Howard’s origin, the inclusion of Duckworld (which did come from the comics but wasn’t Howard creator Steve Gerber’s idea of what the character’s home world was like) and the punny parallels that came with it. Yet for those of us who love corny jokes and puns, the idea of an alternate world where everything’s the same, just with descendants of ducks rather than apes, is a lot of fun. It’s the same appreciation that allowed me to enjoy the ska scene and the similarly parallel worlds of The Flintstones and Dinosaurs and the parodies in MAD Magazine. In the first few minutes, we get treated to the following cheesy but delicious sight and audio gags: a Rolling Egg magazine, a Playduck magazine, movie posters for “Splahsdance,” “Breeders of the Lost Stork” and My Little Chickadee (starring W.C. Fowls and Mae Nest), and commercials for feather fungus treatment and the Crazy Eddie spoof “Crazy Webby.” This, plus the opening credit narration and theory of Duckworld evolution were enjoyable to a kid in the midst of learning about Darwin and pondering the existence of alternate worlds.

5. Jeffrey Jones as Dr. Jenning/Dark Overlord

6. The Diner Scene

Although it’s mostly thanks to Jones that this scene is so memorable, it’s not just his performance alone that makes it so terrific. Every time I watch the movie, I look forward to the entire episode, from Jones/Jenning/Dark Overlord’s exposition to the waitress’ interactions with the “family” to Howard’s pie and quack-fu fight with a bunch of rednecks. And I will always recommend the movie for this scene alone. It includes a lot of disturbing elements, such as Beverly’s claim that she’s Howard’s girlfriend and the angry mob’s desire to kill and cook a talking duck man, that might have worked better had Howard been represented as an animated character rather than a guy in a suit (bestiality and homicide is just fine in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and Looney Tunes cartoons), but it’s also one of the weirdest and funniest scenes from any comic book adaptation ever.

7. Lea Thompson as Beverly Switzler

8. Cherry Bomb and the Howard the Duck soundtrack

9. It’s For Kids

10. It’s Not Redundant

Unlike some comic book adaptations, Howard the Duck isn’t a straight lift from the pages of the source material, and it’s better off for it. Some fans of the comic may be annoyed with Howard’s appearance or Beverly’s occupation or the absence of any of Howard’s usual foes, but those of us who saw the movie first can appreciate the differences, because these allow for a better introduction to and curiosity about the comic. In a way, it’s to the original Marvel series as The Incredibles is to the graphic novel of Watchmen (though it’s certainly not anywhere near as smart nor well-crafted as The Incredibles).

as if you need another reason to love jon hamm...

2009-03-11T13:57:00.003-04:00

"Lex Luthor Bailout" with Jon Hamm - watch more funny videos

Admittedly, this starts off a little slow. Jon Hamm as Lex Luthor is a bit like Jon Hamm as Don Draper... BUT once he gets into his Superman rant, it's absolutely hilarious. What's he going to do with a $100B bailout? "I'm going to kill Superman. I'm Lex Luther. It's what I do."

tv roundup: big bang theory, HIMYM, and castle

2009-03-11T02:13:00.001-04:00

The Big Bang Theory: This episode was really quite fantastic and I may even place it as one of the top episodes of the entire series. The major aspects working in favor of this episode were the fact that Penny had very little screen time (as much as I appreciate her female -- but not feminine -- presence, she's not particularly interesting), and Sheldon was less over-the-top and more grounded (albeit in an obsession with trains). This episode was also able to highlight Leonard's sarcastic coping mechanism to counteract Sheldon's absurd behavior ("We took it to a vote. Three of us wanted to take a plane, but Sheldon wanted to take the train. So we're taking the train."), Howard's epic crash-and-burn flirtation with Summer Glau (recalling his dream was particularly enjoyable: "And then I ripped off your legs and you turned into sausage. What do you think that means?"), and lastly, Raj's genuine charm as he becomes the victim of a placebo non-alcoholic beer ("Did you see Slumdog Millionaire? That was based on my life.") was very funny. It's hard to imagine Summer Glau as anyone other than River or a Terminator, and her bored state of mind looked very similar to an approaching desire to kill everyone. Which, actually, worked for her. But the best running gag belonged to the phone conversation between Sheldon and Penny. In allowing Penny one-time access to his room in order to retrieve a paper from his flash drive, Penny discovers a secret box of letters from his grandmother ("Only Meemaw calls me Moon Pie!") and destroys a difficult ten-step Chinese puzzle box by stomping on it ("Did you hear the click?"). I think this show works best the fewer locations they use. What's better than having Leonard stuck in a small confined space with Sheldon for eleven hours? What's better than Howard reciting his pick-up lines to himself ("It's hot in here, so it must be Summer!")?

How I Met Your Mother: This episode had so many honest-to-God laugh-out-loud moments that I don't even know where to begin. If you want an episode breakdown, I redirect you to Alan Sepinwall's wonderful recap, but here, I'm just going to list my favorite gags. First, the alternating time perspectives was fantastic. I don't know of too many shows who are able to manipulate in quite a seamless way as HIMYM, but here they managed to have flashbacks to college, flashbacks to earlier in the day, and a story that spoke about the potential future when it was really talking about the recent past. ("I'm not going to call her.... because I already did. I'm not going to have lunch with her... because I already did. I'm not going to have sex with her..." You get the idea.) Second, Neil Patrick Harris's forced laugh is completely contagious. What should be a very simple plot -- Marshall forgot his pants at work and had to sneak around in very short gym shorts -- ends up being gut-busting funny all because Barney cannot get past how much fun it was to ridicule his colleague and friend. Mocking Oliver Twist, he asks Marshall, "Please, sir. Can I have some more... pants?" It's a bad joke that NPH makes so deliciously funny that you can't help but laugh. (You know what, stop reading. Go over to Fancast and watch the episode.) Third, Laura Prepon did such a wonderful job being a "douche zombie." For example: "Salt? That's so bougeois." "What's that? Oh... I don't watch television." And my personal favorite, she pronounces van Gogh "van Gochk," the pretentious -- albeit correct -- pronunciation. Fourth, Marshall's rundown of the worst things in the world. One, a supervolcano erupts. Two, an asteroid heads to Earth. Three, all footage of Evil Canival is lost. Four, Ted calls Karen. And five, Lily gets eaten by a shark. ("I'm Lily, and I approve the order of that list.") And lastly, quite possibly the funniest sight gag I have EVER seen... due to taking sleeping pills in preparation for her early job, Robin engages in some unexpected behavior. She talks to herself in her sleep, catches but doesn't remember Ted making out with Karen ("Hey Ted. Hey Lily. Don't worry, I won't tell Marshall), and then... she's on the floor in the kitchen, belly-side down, devouring ribs. It's at the 14:40 mark. It's worth watching... over and over and over again.

Castle: I think we're all aware by now of my unabashed crush on Nathan Fillion. He brings such charm and easiness to his roles that it's really difficult not to absolutely love him. (And if you don't like him, you're just not human.) My thoughts on the premiere are pretty much the same from my earlier post -- I love Susan Sullivan's role as Castle's loose mother ("I performed Mousetrap eight times a week for one year and I still don't know what it's about.") and the female lead, Stana Katic, doesn't annoy me because she's tough but also soft, masculine but also feminine, and I appreciate her casual delivery of certain lines (that other actresses, like Robin Tunney) would over-deliver. As for the other thirty minutes of the pilot, I also enjoyed that the show did not "dumb down" the clues so that I could figure everything out immediately. The killer was predictable, yes, but how Castle and Beckett discover that truth was not as transparent as Bones or as random as House (seriously, some of his diagnoses come out of left field). I know some people may find Castle to be a little too charming or a little too goofy, but I think it's legitimate that an egotistical writer wouldn't take things seriously. I also felt like their "pilot flirtation" (how the series ultimately supplies the foundation for a future romantic arc) was well done. They both they would only be working with each other for a certain amount of time, and so their flirtation was very school yard pulling-on-pigtails that I think it set up a good relationship for future episodes. I hope that other episodes do not try to recreate the blatant flirtation like this episode did and focus more on their two conflicting personalities working together, and how that friction is what ultimately makes them cute together. You can't force chemistry; you have to build on it. All in all, I'm a fan and I'll be back next Monday.

episodes: united states of tara, secret diary of a call girl

2009-03-10T16:47:00.003-04:00

United States of Tara: I haven't really watched this show beyond the first two episodes, and with only four episodes to go, I doubt I'll go back and watch the ones I missed. But this last Sunday's episode was really fantastic, and it almost made me forget how oversimplified and stereotypical the alters are. I don't know much about Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), but I doubt it's as simple as "Alice deals with the maternal stuff, T comes out when there's too much adult stuff to deal with," etc. And although I LOVE the addition of Gimme -- a primitive, animal-like alter, complete with poncho and grunting sounds -- I don't know how realistic that is. I can understand an alter reverting back to a child-like state of mind, but an animal? My ignorance on this disorder allows me a double-function as a viewer: I can enjoy the projected images and situations, but I also have to question them. And one of the more interesting parts of this episode was Alice's announcement that she controls the other alters -- including, it seems, Tara. That makes sense, as Alice is the maternal 50s housewife, but it's interesting to think of "normal Tara" in the same realm as "hillbilly Buck."

But back to Sunday's episode. I thought it was well-written, as in, it had a really great flow throughout the singular narratives. The transition from Tara to Alice over vomiting was especially inspired; a moment that triggers a repulsive reflex turns into a revelatory moment, "I'm pregnant!" I enjoyed Max and the other children humoring Alice's fake pregnancy because this dismissive attitude really turned full circle at the end of the episode (when Tara gets her period and Alice thinks she's miscarried) and Max comes to comfort her on the bathroom floor. The episode also allowed some bonding between Alice, daughter Kate, and sister Charmaine. I think Charmaine has some underlying sexual chemistry with Max, and I don't know if the show is going to explore that, but her rejection of Tara's identity disorder has always been interesting to me. Tara's "chosen" family loves and accepts it, but her blood relation doesn't? I feel like there might actually be some truth to Tara faking it (which I don't think Showtime will do because they would get so many complaints from the medical community). Last week Charmaine bonded with Buck, and now she's bonded with Alice. These have been interesting situations to put Charmaine in. I also have to comment on Marshall's church show -- which, as anti-organized religion as it was, I know people like this, people who would put the Village People in hell and demonstrate a demonized version of getting an abortion. It honored this mindset (people at the show were disgusted, which was the point), but it also made fun of their oversimplification of morality. Also, as a last note, Nate Corddry plays creepy really well. His postmodern video sonnet was ten shades of disturbing.

Secret Diary of a Call Girl: Here is my biggest problem with this show. Nothing substantial ever happens, and when it does, it's as though it didn't. Case in point: I missed the last two episodes, and in one of those, Belle broke up with Alex (the very scrumptious Calum Blue) and then rebounded with Ben, her best friend. I watch Sunday's episode -- the second season finale -- and it's as though Belle never slept with Ben. They're still friends? There's no fall out? There are no lingering feelings? And according to the recap at the beginning, Ben broke up with Vanessa. So where does this leave his feelings for Belle? Not only that, but because this show only has ten episodes per season,* something like the Ben-Belle hookup should have been a monumental forward-driving plot point. It should NOT have been contained to one or two episodes. It's very frustrating the way this show absolutely refuses to develop its characters. Belle isn't likable, and there's not much to recommend her. Ben is fine, but he's only given three-to-five minutes of screen time each episode. The story arc of Belle falling in love and giving up her career as an escort should have been monumental, but instead it was just "something that happened." And the reveal that Alex was testing her, seeing if she had really given up her career for him, should have been shocking but it was predictable and not sad. I should've felt bad for Belle. I should've felt bad for Alex. But I just. didn't. care. I've finally decided -- I'm not going to watch this show anymore. It has such potential to be really good, and instead, it insists on being crap television. And why -- why -- is the makeup department so hell-bent on making Piper look as ridiculous as possible? The bright pink and purple lipstick wasn't enough? They had to give her clown hair? Does that somehow hide her pregnancy...?

* I don't know if future seasons will also have ten episodes. The first season had ten, I imagine, because it was a new show and Britain was testing out its watchability factor. The season season, though, should have had more episodes, right? But perhaps Billie Piper's -- very obvious! -- real-life pregnancy kept the episodes at a minimum? Either way, ten-episode seasons are not nearly long enough to develop any character arc.

snl: "the rock" obama

2009-03-09T01:00:00.003-04:00

Dwayne Johnson does a great Barack Obama. Who knew?

And, because I never get tired of a sweet-voiced tattooed muscle man singing, here is Dwayne Johnson's monologue. He sings a song to prove how tough he is. Keep your eyes peeled for the scene involving chairs.

episode: lost, "lafleur" (5.8)

2009-03-05T14:54:00.003-05:00

Wow. That was an amazing episode. For those of you who haven't figured this out about me by now, I focus more on the storylines and character development than anything else, more than any individual scene or any clever editing trick. With that being said, it's about time that we put the mysteries of the island on the back burner and spent large quantities of time with a central trio of characters (Sawyer, Juliet, and Horace). Now, I don't particularly enjoy Josh Holloway's acting (I've analogized him to Christian Bale's "Batman voice" in the past, and I'm standing behind that), and some of his deliveries were just too "I have a gruffly voice and therefore have authority" for my taste. But it was the actual execution of this episode -- switching between Three Years Earlier/Later -- that really made his transition into the sheriff (with a gruffly voice) interesting.

Daniel: The best shot of the episode has to go to Daniel watching Amy mourn the loss of her husband, Paul. She is crouched over his dead body in the grass, a visual mirroring Daniel's recent mourning of Charlotte. The reason this shot was so heartbreaking was, one, it only lasted a second or two, and two, Lost put Daniel in the background instead of closing in on a close-up of his sad eyes. (And boy, Jeremy Davies has some sad eyes.) For once, Lost wasn't hitting me over the head with its visual metaphors. It was an honest scene, and one well-played by Davies. As for Daniel seeing the little red headed Charlotte... it's 1974, but didn't Ben mention that her birthday was in the late 70s? That red-headed child is around four years old. So unless that child is jumping through time (which is actually possible, hmm), she is just a red herring.

Sawyer/Richard "Eyeliner" Alpert: This exchange was particularly interesting because Sawyer lies to Horace and the others in the Dharma Initiative about how he and his people got to the island. (Of course, Sawyer's the boat captain...) He explains they were looking for the Black Rock -- which is where he killed Locke's father (a surrogate for the real Sawyer that James Ford wanted to kill) -- which is probably where Horace gets his dynamite for the alcohol-induced explosive Three Years Later opening. This lie aside, I find it very telling that Sawyer uses the truth with Richard. He explains that it was the Hostiles (as the Others were known to the Dharma Initiative) who broke the truce by killing Paul and putting a bag over Amy's head. (Technically, Sawyer says that the truce hasn't been broken because he's not part of the Dharma Initiative, but I think the implication is that the Hostiles originally broke it.) He mentions John Locke by name, and poof, Richard has built a foundation of trust with Sawyer. But the reason why this scene makes me so sublimely happy is... finally -- FINALLY -- we have characters who TALK to one another and ask questions. No more of Juliet evading questions. (It still really annoys me that Ethan shot Locke in the leg, and Locke didn't have the chance to explain that to anyone.) No more of Jack neglecting to ask questions in the first place. (His initial meeting with Mr. Friendly, back before we knew his name was Tom, brings back anger.) Richard actually asks, "If you're not Dharma, then who are you?" Although Sawyer doesn't mention that he's a time-traveler from the future (it would be pointless to argue that truth at this point), he does give Richard a fair understanding of why he's on the island. He pretty much said, "Your messiah? Yeah, I'm waiting for him too," and that was all that needed to be said.

Sawyer/Juliet: I love Juliet; I really, really do. But let's be honest. She is written in the exact same way as Kate. This love quadrangle is beyond absurd. One, Jack and Sawyer are just recycling these women. (And how is Kate going to explain to Sawyer that she had sex with Jack right before they left for Guam? Hmm?) And two, Juliet is being forced into relationships for the sake of the masculine narrative. (And yes, I am of the thought that the patriarchal code of cinema is still relevant to modern televisual narratives. This is a male-driven show, and the women only exist to support the male characters' storylines.) With that being said, Juliet is intelligent and cautious. While it does make sense that after three years, she would develop a relationship with someone at the Dharma compound (let's not forget she was "the other woman" with Goodwin back in the day), did it have to be Sawyer -- and did it have to progress to the point where they were saying "I love you" to one another? And again, that scene proves my earlier point about it being a masculine narrative. Yes, this episode is Sawyer-centric, but Juliet's character is used at the expense of Sawyer's. The "I love you" scene was meant to demonstrate that he no longer has feelings for Kate... but what about Juliet? Was her brief relationship with Jack little more than a way to pass the time? Juliet's become the island whore -- and it's absolutely, entirely unbelievable. Cruse and Lindelof, I beg you. Please stop pairing her off when it makes no sense for her character to be with someone.

Enough of that rant. I thought it was sweet that -- with his alias "LaFleur" meaning flower in French -- Sawyer gave his homemaker hippie lady Juliet a sunflower. I do like the two of them together (honestly, I do!). I just wish that the previous relationship entanglements didn't previously occur.

Sawyer/Kate: Boring. I was SO angry at the last three minutes of the episode. So unbelievably angry. Lost gives me an excellent episode and then does the top three things that piss me off about the show, all within three minutes. One, Sawyer gets a phone call from Jin that Hurley, Jack and Kate have been found. Does he tell Juliet? Of course not. Sharing information is frowned upon on Lost. Did it even occur to Sawyer that Juliet might want to know that Jack is back? Two, when Sawyer sees Kate, Lost pulls the only heart-tugging trick it knows. No talking. No ambient sound (not even of the waves or the wind!!). Same few notes playing over the images. Extreme close-ups on faces. Boring. Boring. A thousand times boring. This has never -- not ONCE in the history of Lost -- brought tears to my eyes. Stop. Doing. It. And three, Kate is still alive. I know, I know. She's not going to die. (And I know that they won't ever kill her character, but until they write her better, I'm going to continue to wish that she dies.) So... Sawyer tells Horace that he's forgotten Freckles's face. (Lie.) Sawyer tells Juliet that he loves her. (Most likely true.) And then at the very thought of Kate coming back, he lies to the woman he loves, leaves her on the bed, and goes to a romantic cliffside to reunite with the woman he claims to have forgotten? No. It belittles Juliet as a love interest. It denies me the ability to ever take Sawyer seriously in a relationship. And it just makes me want Kate to die.

Horace: But I said that I enjoyed this episode, so let's get back to some of those reasons. I don't think that Lost is interested in explaining the Dharma Initiative, but I do think that they are going to explore some of this group's missions through living with them in the present. The D.I. is more like a backdrop for the events that happen on the island, not the other way around. The island is the real mystery, and the D.I. were just a bunch of scientists who inhabited it for a while. Because of this, Lost will only provide a few more answers about them -- mostly revolving around Ben and the upcoming Purge -- but other than that, the primary focus is on the island and the Others. If you remember, we first saw Horace back as the welcoming committee for the young Ben and his father, Broots. (According to Kristin at E!, we're going to see more of the young Ben in a four-episode arc. Huzzah!) But in that earlier episode, which is later than our current time, Horace isn't married to Amy. So what happens to Amy? (My guess is that she dies, and I suspect that it's due to a double-crossing nature of hers. There was something eerie about the way she led our Losties through the sonic fence and pulled out her ear plugs. I don't trust her.) But I did enjoy the Horace-Sawyer exchanges, and I think these two actors worked really well off one another. I found a mutual respect in those scenes, and I hope we see them again in the future.

The statue: Finally, we get to see remnants of an ancient society again. Judging by Paul's ankh necklace, the hieroglyphs on the Temple, and the statue's skirt, this was most likely an Egyptian civilization, which makes sense considering their location. And the statue was probably Anubis. Blah, blah, blah. You know, for someone who loves Greek and Egyptian mythology, this aspect of the show just isn't that interesting to me.

All in all, a very enjoyable episode. I'm happy that we got to see more character development... even if the episode did end on a faux reunion of unrequited love between Gruffly Voice and the Girl Who Just Won't Die.

first thirteen minutes of ABC's show Castle

2009-03-05T13:13:00.004-05:00

ABC has released the first thirteen minutes of the Nathan Fillion crime-comedy Castle, and I have to say, it's a bit more charming than I was anticipating. At first glance, this show seems to be stealing the heterosocial "cop-buddy" formula of Bones, The Mentalist, and Fringe (whereby the goofy playboy male is juxtaposed with the intelligent and rational female), and this was a major turn-off for me. I'm happy that females are being represented as logical, but do they also have to be shown as cold-hearted and unable to let things roll off their backs? I also feel like pairings in this manner constrict the characters to certain boxes as a means of forcing the inevitable will-they-or-won't-they dilemma. I find this to be a terribly boring plotline when that's set up as a major premise, rather than unfolding naturally in the narrative. The original trailer for Castle, which can be seen at the end of the thirteen-minute promo, pretty much screams "SEXUAL ELECTRICITY! THEY'RE MADE FOR EACH OTHER!"

But, having said that, the first thirteen minutes shows promise. For one, the leading actress, Stana Katic, doesn't annoy me (at least, not yet). She's very fluid with her lines, and she doesn't seem to be putting on the tough act in every single one of her scenes. And then there's Nathan Fillion -- who is perfectly cast in this role -- who allows for serious moments, such as with his mother and daughter, in an otherwise absurd role. First, I'm pleased that he has a family of women around him. This will allow him to have heterosocial relations with women outside of Katic's character. Also, it will ground him as a character and make him seem more three-dimensional. If he were just a playboy with no moral foundation*, his schtick would get really old, really quickly. Second, I thought the incorporation of Castle into the police's work seemed natural and convincing. I hate that the original trailer makes the exchange in the questioning room seem so flirtatious, because the scene's actually better written than that. And third, Fillion is really bringing his A-game here. He's making sure that his character is likable, but also not a complete idiot. As soon as he's done joking with his new cop buddy, he goes home and starts looking through his old books for answers. It shows that he takes himself -- and his copycat psychopath fan -- seriously.

* The fantastic part about this -- other than casting Susan Sullivan (of Dharma and Greg) as Castle's mother -- is that Castle's daughter will play the adult in their relationship, and yet he will no doubt play the adult in his relationship with his mother. A fantastic scene in the promo involves his mother singing "I'm just a girl who can't say no," which Castle suggests be her theme song. There's a real boy-in-a-grown-man's-body issue here, and I think that will develop into something interesting.

The premiere is Monday at 10pm on ABC. I'll be watching the first few episodes. Hopefully the rest of the episode will maintain my interest.

glamour's tribute to female icons

2009-03-04T20:14:00.004-05:00

On MSN.com, Glamour magazine looks to past female style icons in a photographic tribute to women in history. They write: "You can do anything! That’s the message of the seven decades of female risk takers, rule breakers and style makers here. We celebrate them with the help of some very-2009 young talents."

Alexis Bledel as Rosie the Riveter
In 1942 the U.S. government commissioned the “We Can Do It!” poster, which featured an image of a character who became known as Rosie the Riveter. Her biceps-revealing shirtsleeves and determined look were meant to motivate American women to step out of the kitchen and into the factory to replace the men who had been pressed into service during World War II. And millions did just that, paving the way for us to pull down paychecks more than 60 years later.

“She’s a symbol of women getting things done. It shows that strength is beautiful.” — Alexis Bledel, 27

Paula Patton as Billie Holiday
As an aspiring singer, Holiday suffered sexual abuse, struggled with a drug habit and encountered racism everywhere. But the late Lady Day—one of the first African American women to sing with an all-white orchestra—translated all of that pain into some of the most achingly personal songs ever recorded. (Download “Strange Fruit,” which she sang at her 1948 Carnegie Hall concert, and listen for yourself.)

“You can imagine that women at home hearing her songs on the radio felt her vocalizing their emotions and their struggles.” — Paula Patton, 33

Emma Roberts as Audrey Hepburn
OK, she was born in Belgium, but Hepburn became one of the most beloved American movie stars. Her sharp, sensitive turn as Holly Golightly in Breakfast at Tiffany’s made the film a must-see for women of all ages, while the late actress’s elegant style continues to inspire women to this day.

“She was so simply beautiful. And she loved charity work, something even more beautiful about her.”—Emma Roberts, 18

Alicia Keys as First Lady Michelle Obama
Not only is Obama the first African American filling the position, but she’s already making best-dressed headlines for a style that ranges from couture to J.Crew. Raised in Chicago, Obama, 45, powered on to Princeton and Harvard Law School before beginning a career during which she met, mentored and married our current President. Hail to our newest smart, opinionated, chic First Lady!

“She has worked hard for everything she’s accomplished, and done so with grace and humility. So many women and girls can identify with her story.”—Alicia Keys, 28

if a church were made of legos, would you go? I would!

2009-03-03T12:47:00.006-05:00

This church, made of over 75,000 legs, features a balcony, a Narthex, stairs to the balcony, restrooms, coat rooms, several mosaics, a nave, a baptistery, an altar, a crucifix, a pulpit and an elaborate pipe organ. Restrooms! Impressive, no? (Click on the images for a closer look.)

episode: dollhouse, "stage fright" (1.3)

2009-03-01T15:33:00.009-05:00

Things that didn't work in this episode: Oh, where to begin. (1) First of all, the storyline was absurd. Whitney Houston exploded into the mainstream back in 1992 with Bodyguard, and every time someone tries to reimagine this plot, I can't help but think any version thereafter is "the poor man's Bodyguard." The 1992 film is far from perfect, but it doesn't seem like anyone really expands on the basic plot. Here, Dollhouse tries to put a twist on a familiar tale (which they did last week with "The Most Dangerous Game"), but the "twist" is that the singer, Rayna, actually wants to die and -- get this -- has a pact with her psychopath killer. He kills her during a show, and she is set free. The biggest problem I have with this is... the show doesn't explore how Rayna feels trapped. So she has to pretend to be happy and grateful all of the time. So she is "factory made" (which should have been a nice parallel to Echo's own factory manufacturing, but it seemed so blatant and obvious that I wish it hadn't actually been written into the script).* But so what? Why did she feel like she couldn't simply quit the business?

* To be fair, Fox is notorious for dumbing down scripts so that it reaches the lowest common denominator, and Fox, time and time again (see Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles and House), has shown that they think that denominator is the shared IQ of 95, and no one can pick up on visual signs; everything must be spelled out verbally. It makes deconstructing this text entirely unengaging because Fox wants the message and purpose of the episode to be written in the very delivery of it.

Besides the narrative itself, and the grossly overdone unappreciative diva stereotype, (2) Tahmoh Penikett is still being underutilized. In the same way that Chuck had a problem incorporating the Buy More into the agent action in season one, Dollhouse is having trouble integrating Ballard's quest into the major A-storyline adventures of Echo. Although, to this episode's credit, revealing that the Russian leak was an active doll was refreshing and did offer a bridge -- though faint and minor -- between the two story arcs. But during the fight sequence between Ballard and those nameless/faceless mobsters, I found myself cheering for Helo (rather than Ballard), which may be more my fault than the show's, but Ballard's character has not been developed enough for me to care about him. Why is he so intent on finding the Dollhouse? Did he have a run-in with Echo in the past? I find it hard to believe that his sole determination hinges on secret clues left by a mysterious third party. We're three episodes in now, and we still don't know what motivates Ballard.

(3) Some of the dialogue was unintentionally referential. At one point Rayna screams at Echo, "You don't get to tell me what I can and can't do" -- which immediately transported me to various episodes of Lost. (Which further supported my feelings about Locke being an obnoxious, complaining teenage girl.) The other line was when Rayna was dangling from the catwalk and she said, "I want to live!" I definitely thought of George Bailey, and I don't think that was an appropriate connection to make here. But her delivery was almost identical to "I want to live, Clarence! I want to live!"

What did work about this episode: To continue on Ballard, I did appreciate the following exchange with the Russian. On the one hand, it shows you an intelligent contemplation on why the dollhouse could plausibly exist and the ethical implications involved (the Dollhouse is like the atomic bomb!), but it also shows, through the Russian's unbothered delivery, a common dismissiveness about the dark side of human nature.

Ballard: We split the atom; we built a bomb. We come up with anything new, and the first thing we do is destroy, manipulate, control. It's human nature.
The Russian: Yeah, people are mostly crap.

Also, (2) the last three minutes of this episode were incredibly well done -- but in no way make up for the abysmal previous 40 minutes. And for the first time, it made me excited about the next upcoming episode. Security advisor Laurence Dominic makes the point that Echo is a a risk** -- she makes decisions outside of how she's programmed ("She went off mission!") -- to which Adelle DeWitt counter-argues that Echo did precisely as told (saving Rayna's life) and, furthermore, prevented Rayna from wanting to risk her own life in the future. Of course, these two characters are looking at it from a strictly business point of view. This scene is juxtaposed immediately by the following scene between Boyd Langdon and Dr. Saunders. He calls Echo "special," but Dr. Saunders notes that, referring to Alpha, "special" isn't good in the Dollhouse. Being the best isn't the goal, as she notes, "Sometimes the best to hope for is being just good enough." These two scenes were brief (no longer than a minute each), but both of them developed strong arguments about the business structure of the Dollhouse as well as concerns for reaching beyond the safety of conformity. (I'm just waiting for the inevitable episode where Echo goes to live in Suburbia.)

** In Battlestar Galactica, "retiring" a Cylon was referred to as being "boxed." Here, the concept is similar, but the active would be sent to the "Attic" (no doubt with a capital A), which is a counter-feminist reference, I believe, to The Madwoman in the Attic. There is a thread in much of 18-19th century literature where women who are intelligent, rebellious, or independent are "monsters" and should kept under lock and key in the attic. So here, we have the independent thinking Echo, and that's a problem for the most masculine figure of the show. He's the man of action (brawn) who is quick to "retire" Echo for thinking for herself. But I find pleasure -- instead of irritation -- in this scene because Dominic is immediately silenced by a well-crafted counter-argument from Adelle DeWitt, the female mastermind behind the Dollhouse.

And in addition to this, the closing scene of the episode (3) shows a wonderful visual parallel between Rayna and Echo. Instead of explicitly drawing this connection, the episode shows us Rayna on the stage, isolated under the blinding stage lights, no longer "putting on a show" for herself or her psychopath fan. And she sings her song about freedom: Gotta find the freedom that's promised me freedoms from our struggles and our misery. Freedom is all we need to heal the pain of history. The singer is trapped by the limited space of her performance stage, and she does not exist beyond that frame. And then the camera switches to Ballard in the hospital, who is literally paralyzed by his pursuit of something intangible (technically, the gun bullet is what confines him to the hospital bed, but it's a metaphor), and Echo sings over the images: Each day when the sun shines upon my eyes, it feels me with love, makes me feel alive. I'm saving it up for a rainy day, when there's no light to guide my way. The episode closes on Echo, who, walking through the Dollhouse, feels herself being watched and does not stop to converse with Sierra, the other active. The Dollhouse is no longer the Buddhist safe-haven it parades itself to be.

episode: battlestar galactica, "someone to watch over me" (4.19)

2009-02-28T15:17:00.010-05:00

I thought "Someone to Watch Over Me" was a wonderfully written, visually compelling character-driven episode of Battlestar Galactica, and whereas some people may have felt underwhelmed by the emphasis on love (and with it, absence and betrayal) and wanted a stronger pursuit of dogfights and/or mythology, personally, I think that understanding these characters more will provide for an explosive last few episodes. (I teared up a little when I typed that.) Think about it. A lot actually happened in this episode. We were introduced to Sonia, a Number Six model who has replaced Natalie as the leader of the Cylons. (And I'm assuming she was the Number Six that was at Caprica Six's side in the hospital last week.) Boomer took Hera (more on that below), so now Cavil has the "special" hybrid child. And Boomer pretty much hit Adama with a "point of no return" ultimatum: attempt to shoot her down with Hera on board, and she will jump. Adama didn't back down (boy, he didn't!) and Boomer's jump ripped pieces of Galactica apart. I don't think there's any doubt that the ship Galactica is the "dying leader" of the Pythia prophecies.

Am I forgetting any-- Oh right. Starbuck's dad is Daniel. And kudos to the writers of this episode, David Weddle and Bradley Thompson, for providing this information in such a dramatic way.

Because this episode was primarily about three pivotal characters -- Starbuck, the Chief, and Boomer -- I have divided my thoughts by their character-specific narratives, but in no way do I see these narratives as isolated from one another. The very climax of the episode was heightened by the editor's decision to make Dreilide Thrace's song the connective tissue between the Final Five('s recognition of the song), Tyrol (entering into an empty home), Boomer (jumping), and Starbuck (reawakening from an infantilized state of being). Extremely well done, I say to you, sirs.

Starbuck: First of all, the opening of this episode was brilliant -- and I know I tend to overuse that word a lot with this show, but to be fair, I don't use that word very often elsewhere. BSG is my Plato's Form of the Real, to which everything else must be compared. The episode begins with a montage of Starbuck's routine. This exploration of the quotidian is interesting not simply because she's found herself trapped in monotony*, but because her recitation of the crew's mission (as she is the CAG, once again) comes to her in passing. She is not concentrating on remembering her lines, nor is she preparing for her presentation. As she mentions, "Our mission is the same as it was last week. And the week before. And the week before that." In one simple line, we, the audience, finally find out what the pilots have been doing these past week and what the goal is they're reaching towards. So in this opening montage, it's not just about Starbuck feeling trapped -- because "trapped" implies that one can eventually escape, and as Maurice Blanchot would argue, the everyday escapes [you] and thus you cannot escape it. The opening montage is instead about the despair and desperation found in the everyday. BSG has traveled this road before, most notably with Dualla. The everyday can sometimes be the hardest part of living.

* I particularly appreciated the multiple shots of Starbuck in the shower. She didn't do much other than shower, and there wasn't a strong differentiation between these scenes (she wasn't angry in one, sad in another, for example). And this visual redundancy further emphasized the state of not-being that Starbuck experiences throughout the entire episode.

I had a conversation with my BSG comrades J&G last night, and J. has a difficult time caring for Kara Thrace because she seems to bounce from man to man, taking what she wants from them and discarding them when it's uncomfortable for her. We eventually came to appreciate the fact that people like this exist in the real world (we call them narcissistic self-centered assholes...), but for J., he wants to see a redemptive moment from a character like that. I, on the other hand, because I know of Kara's history with an abusive mother and absent father and losing Zak Adama, I don't need her to bounce back. It's not that she "uses" these men -- Lee, Leoben, and Sam -- but that she gets specific answers from each of them. With Lee, their relationship revolves around competition and action, and he's really the only person she truly trusts. But Kara is a self-destructive person who doesn't think she deserves happiness (because of her mother and because of Zak's death, which she blames herself for), and so her relationship with Lee can never fully flourish because she doesn't trust herself enough to be with him. From Leoben, she gets religious answers -- and his prophetic utterances mirror her mother's assertion that she is special and needs to fulfill that role better -- but Leoben leaves her at the very moment when Kara loses her concept of self. "Kara" is a fighter pilot, but on Earth, she discovered that "Kara" is dead and she has no idea who (or what) she is anymore. And Leoben can't provide those answers anymore. He doesn't know who or what she is either. And then there's Sam Anders, who represents civilian life and normalcy, a side of humanity that Kara never thought she could be part of. When you think of previous Starbuck-centered episodes, she constantly puts herself out on the field (or out in space, rather), even if her chances of dying are 110% likely. That's why "Maelstrom" was such an interesting episode because Kara, I think, has this secret death wish. Dying in battle, dying in a moment of glory, would hold more meaning to her than, say, living on New Caprica and having a life with Anders. And of course, we don't get to see that domestic side of Starbuck for very long before she's held captive by Leoben. And perhaps there's a reason for that. "Domestic Kara" is not Kara at all. So Anders represents this life of normalcy (he's not a soldier, a concept that primarily makes up her identity), and with Anders in the hospital -- and Lee in political circulation -- she really has no one left to provide her with answers. What does she do? She goes to the bar, downs a few shots, and then imagines -- projects? -- a pianist.

I'm not going to go into specifics about her scenes with this pianist, other than to say that they were very well done. Katee Sackoff did some of her best acting in this episode, and a particular highlight is when she tries to press the piano keys and can't. In that moment, she's crying -- but it's not a scene of self-pity. It's a scene of hardened determination. She wants to play the keys as to prove to herself that she can, that the memory of her absent father will not keep from making her own decisions, but instead she cries and she hides these tears from the piano player. Others have compared the ending reveal -- the pianist was never really there -- to The Sixth Sense, but I think that's unfair because that gimmick has been around a lot longer than that movie. But what was particularly satisfying about the reveal was that Starbuck was NOT shown to be shocked. It wasn't really a reveal -- and let's be honest, most of us (should have) figured this out long before the ending, namely since the pianist didn't talk to anyone else and no one in the bar was affected by his playing. So after the "reveal," there is the mid-shot of Sackoff, and she portrays Starbuck as someone who is finally coming to terms with her father leaving her. Just like Anders and Leoben and Lee, her father cannot provide her with any more answers. In the same vein that her father's song made her feel happy and sad all at once, Kara Thrace is a character who finds sadness in happy moments (like marrying Anders the morning after she and Lee profess their love for one another) and the silver lining in despair (such as her determination to find Earth).

Boomer/Tyrol: Oh, Boomer. You make it so hard for me to empathize with you. Boomer, of course, was the first "deactivated" Cylon, and during her secret affair with the Chief, she discovered clues that pointed to her being a Cylon. (And in an interesting parallel, when Boomer was secretly planting bombs aboard the Galactica, it was Tyrol who helped her and almost took the fall for her. The irony, of course, is that back then, neither of them knew their true identity and were dealing with the exact same problems that they face here, almost four years later.) Boomer shoots Adama; Callie shoots and kills Boomer. Her murderer then marries the man she loves and has a child with him. In the episode "Downloaded," we get the initial seed of darkness and anger with Boomer. Whereas she originally felt like she was betraying the humans, she later feels that the humans betrayed her -- that the Chief betrayed her -- and she joins/is manipulated by Cavil to join his band of not-so-merry men, hell-bent on the destruction of the human race. Boomer's entire arc here -- helping Ellen escape to Galactica -- was only a ruse so she could capture Hera and bring her back to Cavil. If there a twisty-mustached villain in BSG, it would be Boomer.

Two things to discuss about Boomer: (1) Does she still really love the Chief, and (2) Why would she sleep with Helo? In response to the first one, my answer is yes, she does still love the Chief. Not only does she ask Tyrol to leave with her at the end of the episode, but her projection of their potential life together -- a life they were planning long before either of them knew they were Cylons -- was so specific to their discussions from four years ago that I got the sense that she has been escaping into this projection reality for the past few years. How often she goes there, I don't know. And then after Boomer leaves Galactica with Hera, Tyrol's projection of the house has him in his uniform (and not grey t-shirt), which shows his own projection -- projection from psychoanalysis, not Cylon-projection -- of heartbreak. Boomer is gone, and Hera, the metaphorical surrogate for their own child, is gone. Tyrol thus enters an empty home which, like a heart, is filled with empty rooms. Did Boomer manipulate the Chief? Absolutely. But manipulation and love are not mutually exclusive. She could very well have used him in the hopes that he would escape with her at the end.

As for the second question, she slept with Helo as a means of responding to the notion of Athena. Boomer was originally part of Galactica then betrayed them for the Cylons, and Athena (waaay back on Caprica in season one) betrayed the Cylons in order to join the Galactica fleet. Athena found love with Helo and they bore a child together, and not only that, but Adama and the rest of the fleet accepted her. (Not initially, of course, that took time, but Boomer wouldn't know about the hard struggles Athena faced.) She sees Athena as a weak Cylon, someone not worthy of being part of her line of Eights, and she resents Athena for being and having everything that she couldn't. Boomer is fully aware that Athena is tied up and would witness her sex tryst with Athena's husband, which is why Boomer comes at Helo like a lion ready to pounce on its prey. It's not sex; it's domination, and Boomer is dominating Athena, not Helo.

Fantastic character-driven episode, and I really think it's created a nice set-up for the upcoming last three episodes (sniff...). These characters are more real than real to me, so I know that saying goodbye -- and not living out the future with them -- is going to be hard. Sometimes I think I shouldn't become so enmeshed in these characters, but this show, more than any experience I've had in the real world, reminds me on a constant basis why humanity deserves a fighting chance, despite our flaws and our mistakes. I'm going to miss that reminder.

posters: they sure don't make 'em like they used to

2009-02-26T09:57:00.003-05:00

Update, 11:54pm: Actually, it looks like they DO make 'em like they used to... check out the trailer for the upcoming Alien Trespass below. Needless to say, I think it looks like a Mystery Science Theater reject and oh-so awesomely awful.

episode: dollhouse, "the target" (1.2)

2009-02-25T17:50:00.006-05:00

Critics didn't love the pilot of Dollhouse, and to be honest, I wasn't crazy about it either. There was obvious studio head meddling going into the narrative. The opening "introduction" to Echo was so short it had to be afterthought, and the closing snippet about Alpha's escape was an obvious last-minute push to add mystery and intrigue to these characters and their relationships with one another. So without going into too much about the pilot, I say -- skip it and watch the second one. The second episode, "The Target," is a much better hour of television and you get all of the introductory materials (via well-used flashbacks) in a more cohesive and less disorienting way.

"The Target" was based off of Richard Connell's short story The Most Dangerous Game" (which you can read in its entirety here), with a slight twist at the end. There are three reasons why this episode worked really well -- and why I ultimately recommend the show, basing my judgements on something other than gratuitous love for creator Joss Whedon. First, Elisha Dushku can only act one role (tough/vulnerable/naive) -- BUT you hardly notice her inability to act when she's playing this role. (See also Faith on Buffy the Vampire Slayer.) In the pilot, she played a hostage negotiator, complete with inhaler (huh?) and glasses (seriously?), and Dushku didn't sell it. But here, in "The Target," she sells that she's a sportsman and that her shift to retaliate is plausible and engaging. Second, this episode showed more of her relationship with her handler, Boyd Langdon (played ever-so wonderfully by Harry Lennix). We learn why she instantly trusts him (she was programmed to trust him when he says the phrase "Everything is going to be okay"), and we learn how Langdon was initially brought into the Dollhouse. He became Echo's new handler when Alpha went all Patrick Bateman on everyone, including her previous handler, but without touching Echo. And third, the flashbacks offered a fluid narrative device in showing -- and not telling! -- us about Echo's resurfacing memories. Whereas in the pilot, Echo remembered things kind of randomly, but here, with this narrative device, Echo gains access to privileged information, just as we do in learning about Langdon, Alpha, and the Dollhouse.

So here's my theory, one that I think leans more towards the humanist side in all of this, but not in any way that would detract from the science or morality of the show. I don't think Echo is the first doll to recover suppressed memories. (Certainly Topher isn't "erasing" or extracting memories; he's merely relocating them in the brain.) I think Alpha was the first doll to start remembering his missions, and when he learned of his true identity -- either his "real world" identity or his identity (or lackthereof) as a doll -- he decided to load into his brain martial arts skills in order to defend himself. Remember, Topher says that Alpha implanted HIMSELF with those skills, so why and how could he do this? He did this because he knew the truth about the dollhouse.

So what does that have to do with Alpha's Echo trail for Agent Ballard (who, I'm convinced, is named after the sci-fi writer J. G. Ballard)? I'm not too sure, but I definitely think Alpha has feelings for Echo. I think he fell in love with her, and every time her memories were altered and went back to a tabula rasa state, Alpha grew increasingly angrier with his and her situation. This theory falls apart when you consider Ballard in the mix (why doesn't Alpha just expose the Dollhouse immediately?) or Echo (why didn't Alpha just take Echo with him when he escaped?), but both of these concerns could certainly be answered later and still be in line with my theory.

Basically... I want the show to be more about interpersonal relationships than ethics. Is the Dollhouse ethical? Are the dolls still people without memories? (For what is the "I" if the "I" has no past?) How long will Boyd Langdon have qualms, inner conflicts regarding the Dollhouse? I'm more concerned about Alpha and his relationship to Echo. And even if it isn't romantic, perhaps he thinks of her like his sister. And hopefully -- since Alan Tudyk will be playing the as-of-yet unseen role -- Alpha will have an ironic sense of humor. Alpha can be dark and twisty, but he can also be fun to watch.

exciting casting news: michael cera, michel gondry, alan tudyk, and andy richter

2009-02-24T19:12:00.008-05:00

I don't which of the following makes me happiest, but I am ecstatic to announce all of them.

• Michael Cera has finally signed on for an Arrested Development movie!!! I think I just blue myself! Arrested is my second favorite television show (right after BSG, right before Mad Men), and I am oh-so curious to see what new ideas Gob will come up with (will any ever match "Fuck Mountain"??) or what other phobias Tobias has (because you know the Never-Nude is not the only one). Eek!

• Michel Gondry is in talks to direct The Green Hornet. Yes, the one with Seth Rogen. Yes, the film that will no doubt be the most random amalgamation of awesomeness ever. How can this get any weirder? I know. Cast Meryl Streep as Rogen's love interest... and then everyone BUT Streep is nominated for an Oscar.

• This news is somewhat hidden in the spoiler chat (so don't click on the link if you don't like spoilers!), but according to Kristin at E!, Alan Tudyk will star as Alpha on Joss Whedon's Dollhouse. Be still my beating, bursting heart. Tudyk played Wash on Firefly (it really is true that Whedon keeps the paychecks coming for his merry band of men), and Wash is a favorite character in the Whedonverse. He was everything Xander on Buffy the Vampire Slayer tried to be but couldn't be. I'm surprised this news hasn't broken out elsewhere -- which makes me question the validity of the announcement -- but Tudyk would certainly heat things up on the show. And, oh, he's pretty damn easy on the eyes.

• And lastly, what may be the nicest surprise ever, NBC has announced that Andy Richter will be reteaming with Conan O'Brien on The Tonight Show. They were such a good team back in the day, and they have such great chemistry together. (If you missed O'Brien's last appearance on Late Night, watch it over at Hulu, and definitely pay attention at the 5:58 mark for O'Brien's early reporting on a team of people who played "old-timed baseball." Doesn't get much better than that.) In addition to joining O'Brien in some sketches (O'Brien has reassured us that his humor will not be "growing up" when it moves to an earlier timeslot, yay!), Richter will also be the announcer -- which means we will get some Richter-O'Brien lovin' every night.

best/worst of oscars fashion

2009-02-23T14:04:00.000-05:00

Best Dressed of the evening, Kate Winslet and Penélope Cruz
I have to admit, I usually hate dresses that are dyed, one-shouldered, or just overall asymmetrical, but I loved, loved, loved Winslet's dress. It was my favorite of the night, and she looked absolutely stunning. Her hair was reminiscent of Grace Kelly, but the dress was all her own. And Cruz also looked fabulous (no one can pull off bangs like this woman can), though her dress was a little fairy-tale wedding-ish for it to be the best dress of the whole evening. But I cannot find a flaw with either of these designs.

Other Best Dressed, Taraji P. Henson and Evan Rachel Wood

ACK! SHIELD YOUR EYES! Tilda Swinton and Reese Witherspoon

highlights of the oscars

2009-02-22T23:52:00.008-05:00

For a list of complete winners and the other nominees, go here. (It's scary how quickly Wikipedia is updated with information...) And for additional reading, I recommend this recap from I Watch Stuff. It's very funny (Sophia Loren eats babies, apparently).

The good news is... the Oscars didn't suck this year. In fact, there was a lot to recommend.

:02: Host Hugh Jackman starts his Oscar tribute medley (complete with the line "swim in a sea of excrement" during a serenade to Kate Winslet). The "low-budget" set was just as entertaining as some of the numbers (especially the Benjamin Button cut-out and the lime green Frost/Nixon lawn chairs), which included "the Craiglist dancers" (!!!) and a Frost/Nixon duet with Anne Hathaway. While dancing with Hathaway's Nixon, Jackman delivered one of my favorite lines of the evening: "Oh, Nixon..."

:07: The best part of the opening? Jackman's tribute to The Reader. He starts off with the line, "The Reader, I haven't seen The Reader" and goes into a full-on futuristic dance number with people in shiny leotards -- which has absolutely nothing to do with the post-WWII Nazi Germany film.

0:12: I'm not quite sure why the Oscars decided to hand out the acting awards by five fellow winners -- perhaps to honor the craft rather than any one person -- and I'm still undecided on how I feel about it. I have to admit it, though, the Best Supporting Actress presenters (Eva Marie Saint, Goldie Hawn, Angelica Houston, Whoopi Goldberg, and Tilda Swinton) had the best material. It was nice to see the nominated actresses already in tears (Viola Davis broke my heart!), humbled by the kind words spoken by these past winners. (Of course, all of the nominated male actors were nowhere near this level of touched...)

:22: Tina Fey and Steve Martin present the best original and best adapted screenplay awards. (For the record, I'm sad that In Bruges didn't win best original screenplay, but the screenwriter for Milk, Dustin Lance Black, gave an appropriately touching and hopeful acceptance speech.) Fey and Martin are one of the highlights of the evening -- and possibly any Oscars ever. I, for one, appreciated that writers were presenting the awards, and so the intelligence of their act really reflected how important words are to movies.

INT. KODAK THEATRE - OSCAR NIGHT

The two incredible presenters walk out to center stage.

The crowd is amazed by the star power and beauty of the two presenters.

The audience members are too stunned to leap to their feet.

The crowd is thrilled at seeing the presenters, except for those consumed by bitter jealousy.

The audience breaks into wild, uncontrollable applause.

They also gave us this great exchange. Fey: It has been said that to write is to live forever. Martin: The man who wrote that... is dead.

:33: Jennifer Aniston is in the running with Robert Pattinson for most awkward presenter of the evening. Her "acting" casual was really distracting. (Just goes to show, folks, the woman can't act.) But Jack Black saved their performance by explaining how he makes money off doing animation: "Each year I do one Dreamworks project, then I take all my money to the Oscars and bet it on PIXAR!"

:40: Kunio Kato wins for Animated Short Film (La Maison En Petite Cubes) and has difficulty thanking people in English. He does it well, but you can tell he hears how broken his English is because he winces every time he starts a sentence with "thank you." So once he's reached the end, he adds, "Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto." Funniest. Thing. Ever. Just like Josh Brolin, I couldn't stop laughing.

1:01: Ben Stiller presents the Cinematography award with Natalie Portman... as the never-named but much-alluded to Joaquin Phoenix. Phoenix quit acting to become an actor, and here Stiller claims he wants to stop being known as the funny guy. And then during the reciting of the nominees, he walks around on stage.

1:12: Seth Rogen and James Franco star as their Pineapple Express characters in a Judd Apatow short film where the guys watch the films which haven't been nominated -- and, of course, they're comedies. (Ha! Take that you pretentious academy!) When they watch an intense scene from The Reader, they burst into laughter.

Franco: When I watch movies, I want to be intellectually stimulated... or watch young boys have sex with Nazis.

Franco: (While watching Tropic Thunder) Who do you think is a better actor -- Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama?
Rogen: That's... that's Robert Downey Jr.

Rogen: (While holding an Oscar statue) Do you think I could make this into a pipe?

1:22: There's an unnecessary musical medley... not that I didn't like it, I just thought it was inappropriate for the Oscars. Of course, this was a tribute to musicals that were adapted into films (The Sound of Music, Singing in the Rain, Chicago, Grease), with the best moment belonging to the juxtaposing mix of Jesus Christ Superstar's downtrodden "I Don't Know How to Love Him" with Hairspray's upbeat "You Can't Stop the Beat." More importantly, at 1:25, Zac Efron finally comes into the light. (Holy crap, has he been on the stage the whole time?) I geek out a bit because the thought of High School Musical at the Oscars blows my mind. Interestingly, this was put together by Baz Luhrman.

1:35: Cuba Gooding Jr. yells at Robert Downey Jr. for Tropic Thunder. "Aren't you outta your mind?!?" I grow uncomfortable... and pray that the Oscars never let Gooding back on their stage again.

1:38: Heath Ledger wins for Best Supporting Actor. And all is right in the world. His family accept the award, and their speech is composed but still touching. (Adrien Brody is visibly moved. Or stoned.)

1:43: Bill Maher shamelessly plugs his documentary. I want to slap him in the face.

1:46: Ever the entertainer, Philippe Petit (Man on Wire) balances an Oscar statue on his chin as everyone looks on in amazement.

2:32: A. R. Rahman wins for his original song "Jai Ho" for Slumdog Millionaire. He offers this beautiful line: "All my life, I had the choice between hate and love. I chose love, and here I am."

2:41: Queen Latifah sings "I'll Be Seeing You" during the montage of all those who passed during the past year (ending on Paul Newman -- it always surprises me by how worked up I get by his death). But everyone claps. I thought the point of having Latifah there was so people wouldn't show favoritism through their applause...?

2:57: Five previous Best Actress winners (Sophia Loren, Shirley MacLane, Marion Cotillard, Nicole Kidman, and Halle Berry) appear on the stage... and everyone stands and applauds. You know, for an entire industry who tries to maintain a patriarchal order -- these five women brought an entire audience to their feet, whistling and yelling and clapping at their brilliance. It certainly seems like this is the biggest award of the night. (Seriously, any one of these actresses -- other than Angelina Jolie -- could have honestly won.) After MacLane presents to Anne Hathaway, there's a cut to fellow nominee Meryl Streep, which I thought was nice because Streep looked like the proud mother of her Devil Wears Prada co-star.

2:58: But the best part is Marion Cotillard's thanks to Kate Winslet that really made me happy. She was actually humbled and sincerely grateful for Winslet and her body of work, for her courage and beauty. Cotillard was crying more than Winslet, and Winslet was earnestly touched by Cotillard's appreciation. And then... Kate Winslet wins, and everyone cheers "FINALLY!"

trailer: funny people

2009-02-22T15:10:00.004-05:00

My commentaries on Friday night's Battlestar Galactica and Dollhouse episodes will be posted in the next two days, but in the meantime, here's a trailer for an Adam Sandler movie that -- GASP! -- actually looks good. (He's one of those people, like Tyler Perry or Ben Stiller, who I wish would stop making movies.) Funny People was written and directed by Judd Apatow, and of the plot he says, "I'm trying to make a very serious movie that is twice as funny as my other movies. Wish me luck!" It's about a comedian (Adam Sandler) who has a near-death experience and then lives his life as new and fresh from then after. Highlights of the trailer include Leslie Mann's gloriously awful impression of Eric Bana (sporting his natural accent) and the gut-busting line, "I like your movies -- the ones where you kill Bruce Willis." Hanz Gruber love!

warning: awesomeness will occur

2009-02-19T19:23:00.003-05:00

Warning: You should have a five foot radius around you while watching this, and you definitely shouldn't have any liquid or food in your mouth. It could be very dangerous.

episode: lost, "316" (5.6)

2009-02-19T13:30:00.012-05:00

Some brief thoughts on last night's episode of Lost...

Overall, I thought it was just an okay episode, but we viewers have been spoiled with rewards this season (the writers have actually been answering our questions), so of course this episode is going to seem slow in comparison with the previous episode. But surely the rest of the season cannot play out in such a fast pace. My only issue with this episode is that it was Jack-centric. Not only has Jack had more (unnecessary) flashbacks than anyone, but there wasn't a conflict with his character. He was the only one who wanted to back to the island, so, as Alan Sepinwall noted, "This was, essentially, an hour of watching Jack pack for a trip to the airport."

• On the other O6ers: Sayid is the new Kate. He is apparently being escorted by a marshal and, as we know from earlier this season, he's a bit of a wanted man. Eloise said that they needed to recreate the circumstances as closer as possible, and if Locke is replacing Jack's father in the coffin, I think it's perfectly acceptable that Sayid would adopt Kate's old character, the "fugitive with the heart of gold." As for Hurley, I definitely think Charlie reappeared to him again and told him to get on the plane. How else do you explain Hurley carrying around a guitar? It's safe to say that Hurley "saw" someone who told him to go to the island -- though it could very well be Libby -- but my money's on Charlie because of the guitar.

• Also, on the flight, Sun is twisting her wedding ring, which mirrors Rose's concern for Bernard on the Oceanic 815 flight. And Ben showing up late mirrors Hurley's panic run to make it to the Oceanic 815 flight on time.

• And with all of these connections, why is no one concerned about bringing Walt back to the island???

• The episode's title is obviously referring to the Ajira flight number (and also alluding, yet again, to the mysterious numbers), but any Christian who sees the numbers 3 and 16 together will automatically think of the oft-quoted passage John 3:16. (Personally, I get really annoyed by how often John 3:16 appears in everyday culture because it's like the Cliff's Notes version of Christianity, and, personally, I find it very reductive. But for the purposes of Lost, and having a character named John playing the Jesus role, I think it's appropriate.) And for those of you unfamiliar with John 3:16, here it is:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Loosely (and not literally) applied, this is pretty gosh darn appropriate, isn't it?

• The Lamppost "station" is a reference to The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, as the lamppost was the intermediary between the wardrobe/real world and Narnia. (Also, though I don't know how significant this is to Lost, in Prince Caspian the children come across mysterious ruins... though there are no four-toed statues in sight.)

• James Joyce shout out! Ben is reading Ulysses, which I think most people know as a modern (perhaps postmodern...?) retelling of The Odyssey. Leopold Bloom walks around Dublin for a day... but the significance here is that the last chapter of Ulysses is titled "Penelope." And Ben is reading this book. There is no doubt in my mind that Ben has killed Penny at this point -- or at least attempted to kill her. (I'm inclined to think he's already killed her since he's on his way to the island, presumably to never return to the world again. I don't think Ben is interested in living outside of the island. He only left so he could exact revenge on Charles Widmore by killing his daughter.) So although Ben's bloody face is disturbing to look at, it's that much more appalling when you make the connection that he's done something to Penny.

• Jack, our recovering alcoholic, is seen with a drink twice -- but he never drinks. Redemption overload!

• The photograph of the island is dated 23 September 1954, the same year that the United States military brought Jughead to the Island. It is also classified as for "U.S. Army eyes only." So, (1) what does Eloise and Dharma have to do with the U.S. Army (which just adds fuel to the theory that Eloise and Ellie from "Jughead" are indeed the same person), and (2) seriously, no one has a more updated photo?

• The painting at the church -- The Incredulity of Saint Thomas -- is by Caravaggio and is housed in Germany, not LA. Of course, it's appropriate that Lost's own Doubting Thomas, our dearest rational Jack, is the one who is lectured/schooled on the skepticism of faith.

• I think most people's favorite exchange from the episode comes between Jack and Ben. Jack asks him, "How can you read," to which Ben deadpans, "My mother taught me." It's funny because it's a creepy lie -- a lie because Ben's mother died at childbirth, and creepy because Ben sees and talks to his mother, so he very well could have been taught by her -- but there were better lines. Like Frank's delivery of "We're not going to Guam, are we?" But my favorite? Jack asks what's going to happen to everyone else on the flight, and Ben (the self-serving Henry Gale version that I grew to love) responds, "Who cares?"

• As for Frank being on Ajira flight 316... Frank was always supposed to be on the island, first as Flight 815's original pilot and again as the chopper pilot and the final time as the pilot of Flight 316. Chalk this up to course correction.

• And lastly, Jin is totally working for Dharma. I'm expecting some awesome Dharma-Daniel-Jin storylines coming up. (Speaking of time-travel craziness -- as is usually the case -- remember that Sawyer found an Ajira bottle in the Swan station. This leads me to believe that in the 70s, when Jin is working for Dharma, and might have been working for them for years, Ajira actually crashes or interferes with the Swan station in some way. I think the bottle Sawyer holds is in fact from Flight 316 and from the present-past. Remember that in the last episode we see Locke "correcting" the wheel axis, so perhaps there are no more time jumps and everyone -- Sawyer and Jin and Daniel and them, and also those on Flight 316 -- are all stuck in the 70s.)

• One more thing... that Jack-Kate kiss? Puh-lease. The inconsistent character melodrama, I can do without. When I saw her laying on the rock in the island, I held my breath in hopes that... could she be dea-- Nope! (As long as they keep writing her as a woman who only exists to fulfill some need in the plot -- specifically the males' plots -- I will continue to hope that she dies.)

national review's 25 best conservative movies

2009-02-17T22:36:00.003-05:00

National Review has posted a list of the 25 best conservative movies of the last 25 years. I was surprised by how many films on this list I actually enjoy and, furthermore, consider some of my favorite movies. Below, I have listed some of the more notable films, and my favorites are denoted by asterisks (***). The following comments are from insightful readers of the National Review.

1. The Lives of Others (2007)***

“I think that this is the best movie I ever saw,” said William F. Buckley Jr. upon leaving the theater (according to his column on the film). The tale, set in East Germany in 1984, is one part romantic drama, one part political thriller. It chronicles life under a totalitarian regime as the Stasi secretly monitors the activities of a playwright who is suspected of harboring doubts about Communism. Critics showered the movie with praise and it won an Oscar for best foreign-language film (it’s in German). More Buckley: “The tension mounts to heart-stopping pitch and I felt the impulse to rush out into the street and drag passersby in to watch the story unfold.” — John J. Miller

4. Forrest Gump (1994)***

It won an Oscar for best picture — beating Pulp Fiction, a movie that’s far more expressive of Hollywood’s worldview. Tom Hanks plays the title character, an amiable dunce who is far too smart to embrace the lethal values of the 1960s. The love of his life, wonderfully played by Robin Wright Penn, chooses a different path; she becomes a drug-addled hippie, with disastrous results. Forrest’s IQ may be room temperature, but he serves as an unexpected font of wisdom. Put ’em on a Whitman’s Sampler, but Mama Gump’s famous words about life’s being like a box of chocolates ring true. — Charlotte Hays

5. 300 (2007)

During the Bush years, Hollywood neglected the heroism of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan — but it did release this action film about martial honor, unflinching courage, and the oft-ignored truth that freedom isn’t free. Beneath a layer of egregious non-history — including goblin-like creatures that belong in a fantasy epic — is a stylized story about the ancient battle of Thermopylae and the Spartan defense of the West’s fledgling institutions. It contrasts a small band of Spartans, motivated by their convictions and a commitment to the law, with a Persian horde that is driven forward by whips. In the words recorded by the real-life Herodotus: “Law is their master, which they fear more than your men[, Xerxes,] fear you.” — Michael Poliakoff

6. Groundhog Day (1993)***

This putatively wacky comedy about Bill Murray as an obnoxious weatherman cursed to relive the same day over and over in a small Pennsylvania town, perhaps for eternity, is in fact a sophisticated commentary on the good and true. Theologians and philosophers across the ideological spectrum have embraced it. For the conservative, the moral of the tale is that redemption and meaning are derived not from indulging your “authentic” instincts and drives, but from striving to live up to external and timeless ideals. Murray begins the film as an irony-soaked narcissist, contemptuous of beauty, art, and commitment. His journey of self-discovery leads him to understand that the fads of modernity are no substitute for the permanent things. — Jonah Goldberg

20. Gattaca (1997)

In this science-fiction drama, Vincent (Ethan Hawke) can’t become an astronaut because he’s genetically unenhanced. So he purchases the identity of a disabled athlete (Jude Law), with calamitous results. The movie is a cautionary tale about the progressive fantasy of a eugenically correct world — the road to which is paved by the abortion of Down babies, research into human cloning, and “transhumanist” dreams of fabricating a “post-human species.” Biotechnology is a force for good, but without adherence to the ideal of universal human equality, it opens the door to the soft tyranny of Gattaca and, ultimately, the dystopian nightmare of Brave New World. — Wesley J. Smith

24. Team America: World Police (2004)

This marionette movie from South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone is hard to categorize as conservative. It’s amazingly vulgar and depicts Americans as wildly overzealous in fighting terror. Yet the film’s utter disgust with air-headed, left-wing celebrity activism remains unmatched in popular culture. As the heroes move to stop a WMD apocalypse, they clash with Alec Baldwin, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, and a host of others, whom they take out with gunfire, sword, and martial arts before saving the day. The movie, like South Park itself, reveals Parker and Stone as the two-headed George Grosz of American satire. — Brian C. Anderson

craig ferguson's "lonely goatherd"

2009-02-17T01:18:00.002-05:00

A little background information: My mother went into labor while watching The Sound of Music and refused to go to the hospital because "the Nazi part" hadn't come yet. So my mother waited. Until this three-hour movie was over. Before allowing me into the world. Well, lucky for us (so as to not become a site for bitterness), The Sound of Music became one of my favorite films (Captain von Trapp is amazing) and ABC shows the film every year on my birthday. I can't even think of a time when this film didn't show on my birthday. But there is one part -- one song -- that my mother cannot stand, and it happens to be the song that is the most fun to sing: "The Lonely Goatherd." Its playfulness is contagious, but my mother absolutely hates it. She walks out of the room. So mum, this video is for you.

In the video above, late night comedian Craig Ferguson's puppets do a rendition of "The Lonely Goatherd." Watch, listen, enjoy, and repeat. You'll need to repeat it because you will have missed it the first time from laughing so hard.

(Actually, this video is really for me. I think Craig Ferguson is one of the funniest improvisational comedians I've seen -- certainly on any late night program -- and I can never tell when his jokes are scripted, which is a sign that he does his job well. He's been starting off each episode with a puppet show, rather than a monologue, and the set-up should absolutely fail, but somehow it doesn't. What's impressive about the video above is that Ferguson knows the lyrics to the song -- really well -- to the point that, when the unicorn's mouth doesn't match the lyrics, he knows and the unicorn looks around confused. So what's better than Craig Ferguson, puppets, and The Sound of Music? Not much, not much.)

flight of the conchords, "the carole brown song"

2009-02-16T16:54:00.004-05:00

In case you missed last night's episode of Flight of the Conchords, which matched the height of the near-perfect first season, here is "Choir of Ex-Girlfriends" (or The Carole Brown Song?). The jokes were top-shelf (Keitha's "Australianness" was comedy gold), the sight gags were clever (Bret's gloves that look like hands!), and the songs were brilliant (see also "Too Many Dicks on the Dancefloor"). But instead of doing a commentary on the episode (I don't watch the show regularly enough to add anything insightful), I thought I would simply share this video that makes me so, so happy.

It is also worth noting that Michel Gondry was the director of this episode, and the music video above clearly showcases his unique visual style.

ew: rom-com clichés to retire

2009-02-14T10:15:00.000-05:00

Because I despise Valentine's Day -- a $14.7 billion capitalist market that reminds me that we're little more than consumer-sheep -- I am posting some of romantic comedy clichés that Entertainment Weekly would like to require. There are 24 in all, but I've posted the ones that especially grate on my nerves. Also, you may have in the past picked up on the subtleties of my disdain for romantic comedies, and I'm always ready to post anything anti-rom-com related. So happy Valentine's Day. It's great to love somebody, but -- like this list notes -- it's not great to be cliché.

MEDIA MAVENS
She's smart, she's sassy, and her mistakes can be captured in print or on film. Her job can take her anywhere, introduce her to anyone. Occasionally, she has deadlines.

EXAMPLE: In 13 Going on 30, Jenna (Jennifer Garner) is an editor at a women's magazine that needs to be redesigned, so she calls on her old friend Matty the photographer (Mark Ruffalo).

SEE ALSO: Writers in How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, The Devil Wears Prada, Never Been Kissed, Sleepless in Seattle, When Harry Met Sally..., and Hitch; Talk/news-show employees in Little Black Book, Someone Like You, Bridget Jones's Diary, and Knocked Up.

WORKING GIRL...NEEDS BALANCE

EXAMPLE: We're gonna have to quote EW critic Lisa Schwarzbaum here, because we weren't paid to see New in Town: ''Renee Zellweger teeters in high heels as a brittle singleton executrix who relocates to a Fargo-adjacent burg and discovers the virtues of 'square' Christian values.''

SEE ALSO: The ad exec-turned-baby applesauce maker (Diane Keaton) in Baby Boom; the home swappers (Cameron Diaz and Kate Winslet) in The Holiday; the big-city fashion designer (Reese Witherspoon) who returns to her roots and coon dog cemetery in Sweet Home Alabama; and the movie star (Julia Roberts) who's just a girl, standing in front of a boy, asking him to love her (side note: worst line EVER) in Notting Hill.

CLUMSY HEROINES
Apparently, the best/easiest way to make a woman seem vulnerable/single is to have her fall on her butt or walk face-first into something. The pratfall epidemic is truly painful.

EXAMPLE: In Bridget Jones's Diary, Bridget (Renée Zellweger) slides down a firemen's pole onto her bottom (and a camera); in Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason, she parachutes into a pigpen and slides off the roof while spying on Mark (Colin Firth).

SEE ALSO: Jessica Alba in Good Luck Chuck; Amanda Bynes in What a Girl Wants; Drew Barrymore in Never Been Kissed; Monica Potter in Head Over Heels; Hilary Swank in P.S. I Love You; Anna Faris in The House Bunny; Brittany Murphy in Little Black Book; and Anne Hathaway in The Princess Diaries.

SCHLUBBY GUY, PRETTY GIRL*
A close cousin to the ''Fat Guy, Skinny Wife'' rule of sitcoms, this applies to movies where a superhot girl falls for a guy totally below her league because she learns what a nice guy he is. When was the last time a schlubby girl got a hot guy?

EXAMPLE: Ben Stone (Seth Rogen) wins the heart of uberbabe Alison Scott (Katherine Heigl) in Knocked Up.

SEE ALSO: Steve Martin and Daryl Hannah in Roxanne; and Kevin James and Amber Valletta in Hitch.

* Of course, my male students find absolutely nothing wrong with this because, and I quote, "nobody wants to look at ugly people." Kevin James isn't exactly a Greek god...

I'VE NOTHING TO WEAR...
Rom-coms and fashion go together like horror movies and blood, so it's no surprise that the majority of them include a scene in which a character tries on a series of outfits in front of giggling friends, helpful salespeople, or smitten lovers.

EXAMPLE: Jane (Katherine Heigl) shows Kevin (James Marsden) her entire wardrobe of bridesmaid dresses in 27 Dresses.

SEE ALSO: Pretty Woman and Sex and the City.

saturdays with ted: jonathan haidt and ursus wehrli

2009-02-14T00:40:00.000-05:00

I have recently begun reading Jonathan Haidt's The Happy Hypothesis -- which I am finding to be quite engaging -- and I went online to discover this website YourMorals.org. After registering my name, I began to take a few psychology surveys, the first of which happened to relate to Haidt's Ted talk on conservative and liberal morals. (According to the study, liberals tend to value justice and have a higher openness to experience, whereas conservative value loyalty.) Here, Haidt opens with the following anecdote:

Suppose that two American friends are traveling together in Italy, and when they come face to face with Michelangelo's David, they both freeze dead in their tracks. The first guy -- let's call him Adam -- is transfixed by the beauty of the human form. The second guy -- we'll call him Bill -- is transfixed by embarrassment at staring at the thing in the middle. My question is, which of these men voted for George Bush and which voted for Al Gore?

Interestingly, Haidt makes the connection that most Tedsters are liberal, and this becomes a problem because all of these individual thinkers actually become a team working towards the same goal. We need to have diversity. And in speaking to this liberal audience, he consciously points out that people who think that the half of America who voted for Bush are either dumb or super religious are blinded by the trappings of their own close-mindedness. In an engaging lecture, he goes on to discuss the 'first draft' of the moral mind, the five moral foundations of psychology (harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity), and how these five foundations work.

And now for some humor... Ursus Wehrli "shares his vision for a cleaner, more organized, tidier form of art -- by deconstructing the paintings of modern masters into their component pieces, sorted by color and size." As someone who isn't the biggest fan of modern art, I find Wehrli to be very funny (on Jasper Jones: "He was practicing with his ruler.") and the images he uses are fantastic. His re-constructed works are actually aesthetically pleasing, mostly because -- as a person who values logic and reason -- I appreciate structure and order.

Comedian and cabaret artist Ursus Wehrli is the author of Tidying Up Art, a visionary manifesto that yearns toward a more rational, more organized and cleaner form of modern art. In deconstructing the work of Paul Klee, Jaspen Johns and other masters into its component parts, organized by color and size, Wehrli posits a more perfect art world.

After the talk, Wehrli notes that he will autograph his book for anyone "using the name of any artist." Ha, what wit. And if you don't want to stick around for the whole 15 minutes (though it goes by quickly, trust me), skip ahead to the 12:28 mark, where Wehrli reorganizes a Jackson Pollack work.

episode: lost, "this place is death" (5.5)

2009-02-12T18:02:00.006-05:00

I don't have anything too insightful to add about last night's episode, mainly because it moved the plot forward -- some say in a hurried way, but I say at an appreciated pace. We learned that Charlotte's parents were part of the Dharma Initiative and that she had indeed been on the island before; Daniel visited her when she was a child and warned her that coming back to the island would mean certain death (and I hope the show sticks to the time-travel rules and that, no matter what Daniel says to her, he doesn't change the fact that she dies); the time-travel flashes have been occurring because Ben knocked the wheel of its axis (does this mean the time-flashes won't happen anymore?); Jin gives Locke his wedding ring to convince Sun that he is dead, but when Ben gives the ring to Sun, it is this very item that convinces him he is alive; Eloise Hawkings is in fact Daniel's mother (but is she the same Ellie that was part of the Dharma Initiative and took Daniel to the atomic bomb?); and Kate still sucks.

I thought this episode was very good in answering some of our questions -- how Danielle's men got "the sickness" (from the monster), what "the Temple" looks like (the hieroglyphs say "Underworld") -- and it showed us some awesome scenes along the way, like Smokey ripping off a guy's arm and Desmond encountering Ben. As Alan Sepinwall notes in his recap, there's no reason for Desmond to recognize Ben or to know that Ben is searching down his beloved Penny to kill her as retribution for Charles Widmore killing Alex.

In case you haven't been reading Entertainment Weekly's Lost recaps, I highly recommend that you do so. I believe a team of graduate students must be behind these impossibly thorough connections, all of which are highly educational to the mythos and intelligence of the show. Take for instance EW's insight into Charlotte's further connection with C.S. Lewis, as demonstrated in this week's episode:

''I'm not supposed to have chocolate before dinner,'' she blurted, her mind suddenly elsewhere. And then she was gone for good.

The temptation of chocolate takes us somewhere, too — namely, straight to hell. In C.S. Lewis' first Chronicles of Narnia novel, The White Witch — a stand-in for Satan; the incarnation of death — seduced Edmund into betraying his siblings with an English delicacy made of chocolate known as Turkish Delight. For Charlotte, the Island was her Turkish Delight — her forbidden fruit — and chasing after it led to her doom. ''This place is death!'' she bellowed, and I couldn't tell in that moment if her mind was in the present, speaking of her killer environs, or if it was in the past, passing along something she had been told.

Digging deeper into the Charlotte/Lewis connection, we sinker deeper into an abyss of subtext. Along the way, we pass A Grief Observed, Lewis' chronicle about the death of his companion, Joy, and how it tested his Christian faith. Then, there's The Great Divorce, which actually isn't about marital dissolution but a fantastical vision of the afterlife, à la Dante's Inferno, although it was actually meant as a parable about living in the here and now. (The title is a riff on — and the book a response to — William Blake's surreal manifesto, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.) These are stories about the underworld, the mythical place where souls hang after they've shed the mortal coil. And now recall the Egyptian hieroglyphics in "The Hatch," which according to the producers of Lost translated into ''Underworld.'' And Smokey's scene-stealing, arm -ripping presence in this episode reminds us that the guy who made the Map in "The Hatch" called the Monster by a different name: ''Cerberus,'' the three-headed demon dog that guarded the gates of Hades. And finally, know that Christian Shepherd, the dude with the Jesus pun name, played the part of ''psychopomp'' in this episode — a ''psychopomp'' being a mythic underworld figure who serves as a ''guide to souls,'' escorting the dead between states of existence.

Pretty interesting, right? And here's a connection that EW makes to HP Lovecraft's works:

Actually, forget CS Lewis and his Christian parables. ''This Place Is Death'' felt like an HP Lovecraft horror story to me. Lovecraft was all about fools who go chasing after forbidden knowledge and buried secrets and wind up getting more than they bargained for, if not killed, or worse, driven hopelessly mad. His stories were full of ancient lands hidden away from the world, where malevolent gods and their pet monsters dwell in their ruins and lie in wait for explorers and other lost souls to feed upon or possess. The essential Lovecraft saga is At The Mountains of Madness, about geologists who discover the remnants of an old civilization in Antarctica and stumble into supernatural trouble, including a monstrous, shape-shifting creature called a Shoggoth. What did Faraday say in this episode?

And here's where your mind is about to blow up. I'm not kidding. It. Will. Explode.

Per the precedent set in ''The Constant,'' in which Season 4 Faraday did not remember meeting Time Traveling Desmond in the past until Season 4 Desmond actually made the trip, I don't think Season 1 Rousseau recognized Jin from their Season 5 encounter. Yes, a little confusing, but it's all summed up by the term ''course correction'' which Lost has frequently cited.

Simply, this means that some kind of omniscient and self-aware agency — God; Fate; Some undiscovered regulatory force — finds a way to sort things out when paradoxes or inconsistencies are created by time travel. This is not merely a writers' contrivance. This is actually rooted in some kind of theory. It is called ''The Principle of Self-Consistency,'' and it was promoted by two eggheads, one named Igor Novikov, and one named David Lewis — and yes, as we learned last season, that also happens to be the name of Dead Charlotte's Dharma Dad.

But it's that Novikov guy who's about to flip your lid. In 1991, in a journal called Classical and Quantum Gravity, Novikov and another dude named Andrei Lossev wrote a big paper about time travel called — drum roll please! — ''The Jinn of the Time Machine: Non-Trivial Self Consistent Solutions.'' The purpose of the paper was to describe various solutions to paradoxical problems created by time travel. Here's an example of one such paradox — taken from a book I found called The New Time Travelers — that I believe speaks to the larger plot of Lost. Let's say a writer wants to write a novel. So he builds a time travel machine, goes to the future, buys a copy of the novel he wrote, then brings it back. Easy. Except who created the novel if the author really didn't write it?

And in describing the significance of Jin's name, EW explains:

The term ''Jinn'' is another word for the kind of genies you might find in Arabic fairy tales. Novikov and Lossev used the term Jinn to describe things like that magical novel I mentioned earlier — things whose existence defy conventional explanations. According to the mysterious author of The New Time Travelers, Novikov and Lossev were drawing on the depiction of a kind of Jinn that you find in the Koran; they are ''a race of spirits that can appear suddenly and unexpectedly.''

A race of spirits that can appear suddenly and unexpectedly. Just like Jin in last night's episode. Just like Christian Shepherd in last night's episode. And just like Desmond in last night's episode — Desmond, whom Faraday in the season premiere called ''miraculously unique.'' Just like a Jinn.

Lost, I may have been short with you in the past -- a bit impatient, with a lot of eye-rolling and sighs -- but I'm 100% back on board. Take me wherever you may lead.

film news: february 2009

2009-02-12T14:02:00.003-05:00

• Joaquin Pheonix was on The Late Show with David Letterman last night, and it's not a pretty sight. Whether he's under the influence of some substance (the glasses do not hide the fact that his eyes can't focus) or acting, it's extremely uncomfortable and in no way going to do anything for his career. I've always had a soft spot for Pheonix, so it's difficult to watch someone with so much talent on an obvious downward spiral.

• Woody Allen's latest muses? Josh Brolin and Anthony Hopkins.

• Been wondering what Michael Moore's next project will be? Following Sicko, his next documentary will take a look at the bailout.

• What? Someone outside of academia can analyze The Incredibles through a Nitzschean lens? The following is by Julian Shapiro over at Film School Rejects:

In order for class stratification and nobility to be properly instilled, the supers need to exploit the commoners for their own gain. On the flip side, however, it could be interpreted that instead of simply intending to save Metroville, the Incredibles aimed to cleverly thrust themselves back into the spotlight instead (in hopes of reclaiming superheroic greatness.) Thus, The Incredibles presents a very murky conclusion to the Nietzschean dichotomy that they had originally established in act one: it showed that it is possible to return to pseudo-greatness—or perhaps even Nietzschean greatness itself—after the birth of mediocrity, but it did not attempt to establish how permanent this form of greatness would be, nor how Nietzschean of a form it took; superheroic nobility was implied to once again be celebrated but there was no suggestion that the commoners had learned their lesson and accepted Nietzsche’s ideal of a “natural” society—one in which class stratification is strict and the growth of the noblemen is the outcome of a self-centered will to power. Hence, The Incredibles’ narrative coming full circle seems to suggest that the superhero is permanently compromised by the slave revolt.

• You can watch the first five minutes of the Clive Owen and Naomi Watts film The International over at Film School Rejects.

• Now, this is geek-tastic. The Vader Project, via Cinematical, "features 100 reimagined Darth Vader helmets created by some of today's most talked-about underground and pop surrealist painters, artists and designers." It's exhibiting at the Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh. Visit The Vader Project website.

• This is older news, but still worth noting because of the actress involved... Cate Blanchett has replaced Sienna Miller in Nottingham, the Robin Hood update with Russell Crowe. And despite my protests, Crowe will not be playing Maid Mariam.

• And lastly, for Valentine's Day, please give out these STD e-cards to your loved ones.

episode: important things with demetri martin, "timing"

2009-02-11T23:55:00.003-05:00

Important Things with Demetri MartinWed 10:30pm / 9:30c

De Veers Diamonds

Joke of the Day
Stand-Up Comedy

Get Funny Ringtones
More Funny Videos

Overall, I really enjoyed the premiere of Important Things with Demetri Martin, though I think the sketches are not nearly as well constructed or timely (ha) as the quick punchlines or drawings. But I'm a sucker for ironic comedy, and no one's better at it than him. Each episode will focus on a different topic/theme, and the premiere looked at timing.

Sketches:

Amanda Peet did a brief guest appearance during the first sketch in which Martin plays an actor who can only act angry off camera. The scene paid off at the end when, after the producer secretly filmed Martin's genuine frustration, Martin goes after the cameraman, screaming, "That was a personal moment!"

The "guy who is too early for a rave" went on for too long. This is one of those sketches that could benefit from a page from Trigger Happy and Robot Chicken; sight-gags should only last 5-10 seconds long, especially for that shock value. This scene lasted for maybe thirty seconds (forty-five?), and that was too long.

The De Beers mock commercials were funny ("Engagement Appreciation" ring, "We are Deep Into Ring Debt" ring), mostly because the thought of a "Just Do It to See What Happens" ring is amazing.

The sketch were the rookie cop enters the wrong apartment and opens fire... not funny. Even with the ice cream bit at the end. I also didn't particularly like Timeline Gigolo sketch. Mary Magdalene? Black Tuesday? A potato famine? Betsy Ross? Surely there are funnier events in history he could have explored.

Drawings:

Millisecond
Millivanillisecond -- amount of time Milli Vanilli was popular
Millenivanillium -- amount of time during which you can make Milli Vanilli jokes

I bought a clock, and the big hand broke off it. I didn't want to throw it away, so I added "ish" to every number. (2ish... 3ish... 4ish...)

Unfortunately, I didn't find the multi-tasking song-and-drawing number to be interesting. The visual jokes weren't very good... and is it just me, or did Martin skip a couple of pages? It certainly showcased his talent (a guitar, harmonica, keyboard, and bells?), but the jokes themselves weren't that funny.

Important Things with Demetri MartinWed 10:30pm / 9:30c

Stand-Up: Timing

Joke of the Day
Stand-Up Comedy

Get Funny Ringtones
More Funny Videos

Jokes:

I wonder if there were any Goths in Gothic times. It would be like, "You look completely appropriate. You don't look sad or lonely at all."

I hate meeting babies. [There was more to this joke, but this line alone was hilarious.]

I think a good place to be during an earthquake would be in bed with somebody. If you timed it right, you would seem like the biggest stud in the world. "How was it?" "He ruined my apartment."

[On onion rings] I hate it when I take the first bite and the onion's like, "Fuck it, I'm going!" "Be patient, onion!"

[my favorite joke from the show] "Timing is everything." That's a cliché... now. But if I said that a long time ago, I would've been original. Think about it.

upcoming awesomness

2009-02-11T03:11:00.002-05:00

Just a reminder about some upcoming awesomeness...

Important Things with Demetri MartinWed 10:30pm / 9:30c

Extended Trailer

Joke of the Day
Stand-Up Comedy

Get Funny Ringtones
More Funny Videos

Tonight is the premiere of Demetri Martin's new Comedy Central show Important Things. It comes on at 10:30pm, which gives you a half-hour of post-Lost brain-melting before you switch over to Martin's observational comedy. (On skydiving: "It's just showing off while you fall.")

Friday night is the premiere of Joss Whedon's Dollhouse. It comes on FOX at 9pm (following The Sarah Connor Chronicles at 8pm). Of course, you'll need to switch over to Sci-Fi the awesomest awesome that ever awesomed -- Battlestar Galactica -- at 10pm.. Friday nights are a sci-fi geek's wet dream, so if you plan on going out, make sure you set your TiVo.

And on Saturday night, Alec Baldwin will be back to host Saturday Night Live's Valentine's Day episode. Baldwin should make up for Steve Martin's surprisingly unfunny episode from two weeks back.