A Statement About Lost, In Which There Might Be Much Rambling

So, here's the thing:  Every week after all of my favorite shows have aired, I get out The Book (well, the online version), and read the recaps of my favorite shows from the critical perspective, looking for things I missed, seeing if the things I didn't were as relevent as I thought.  Sometimes this is an insignificant action (I don't usually need someone to tell me how hard I laughed at 30 Rock), but sometimes this is a necessary occurrence, because I am genuinely not sure what I just saw.

And thusly begins our discussion about Lost.

When people say they gave up on Lost, I completely see why (in fact, the producers see why), but in the past few seasons the rewards for the faithful have been plentiful, and the non-stop "ohmygodwhatthefrak?" for this season has been stimulating and exciting.  While the endgame is most certainly not clear, the progress being made in the bigger picture is definitely something to write home about.

When I'm done watching an episode and still processing, I make sure and read Doc Jensen, and watch his podcasts, because it's the man's job to have too much time on his hands when it comes to things like Lost.  He talks about philosophers and quantum theories, and literary connections that might be stretching too far, but that are there nonetheless.  Doc's analysis is so intense that you almost hope he's wrong about everything, because if it takes that much effort to appreciate the show, then I'm in serious danger of never "getting" it.  I don't know about you, but I'm just not motivated enough to read Ulysses in order to understand why Ben lied to Jack in the most recent episode.

Which brings me to the point of this whole rambling post (don't say I didn't warn you!).  The thing is, I think television has the potential to be the Next Great Art Form, with Lost leading the charge in quality and vision (Battlestar, we love you, too).  Think of Lost like a really great book:  you can watch it superficially, love the characters, their interactions, and the way everything links together.  You can watch it on a mildly involved level, noting the things that come from educated intellect (Charlotte Stokes Lewis... C.S. Lewis! Holy crap!).  Or, you can watch it on a "examine-every-moment-for-every-possible-bit-of meaning" kind of level.  Whatever works.  As long as the payoff is good enough to meet all of these levels of involvement, it doesn't matter what you get out of it or how you get it, as long as you leave feeling satisfied.

Another thing to keep in mind on the over-analysis side, though.  I have a dear friend who studied English and who is an extremely talented writer.  So talented, that she once wrote a short story that a teacher wanted to share with his class and offer up for critique.  In the middle of the lesson, the teacher started talking about the brilliant symbolism in the character's jacket, and the fact that she kept it on, like a security blanket, like armor against the outside world. 

My friend said the character was wearing a jacket because the story was set in winter.  Get it?

And so, the rambling ends with this very principle in mind: is there really that much symbolism?  And is everyone involved in every aspect of the show really keyed in that much to what they are doing (acting nuances, set designers, cinematographers, etc.)?  Are they reading Doc Jensen and thinking to themselves "Damn, this dude is pretty smart!  And that theory is a great idea, let's do that!"?  Or are they really, really that good?

I'm hoping for something in the middle.

A Statement About Generalissimo

On 6 February when I finally sat down to watch the 30 Rock episode entitled "Generalissmo," I became immediately aware of an indisputable fact: That was the funniest half hour of television I have seen all year.

Now, before you smart-asses start talking about how we're only 6 weeks into 2009, by "year" I mean "television year," which of course started in September and ends in 2 months. Got it?

Let us start with the brilliantly used guest stars-- Salma Hayek as Jack Donaghy's girlfriend (as well as his mother's nurse) is absolutely divine. In this episode, Jack is trying to impress his amour's grandmother, who dislikes him because of his close physical resemblence to El Generalissimo, the bad guy on her favorite telenovela (played by... Alec Baldwin. Amazing).

This plot beautifully parallels Liz Lemon and her quest for love with Dr. Andrew Baird, the new guy in the building (Mad Men's Jon Hamm... has there ever been a more geektastic couple assembled on television?), for whom Liz has rather immoderate feelings, whose mail she opens, and who she drags out into the street to look for her missing dog. Liz Lemon, of course, has never, ever had a dog.

For the record: Don Draper, as much as we love you, you have nothing on Andrew Baird. Sorry, cowboy.

The whole thing culminates with Alec Baldwin's dual personalities confronting each other over the death of a ridiculous telenovela character, Liz accidentally roofie-ing darling Dr. Baird, the man who lives in the basement with the nails delivering her dog back to her, and something about complimenting all of the Latin babies in New York on television.

Even Simon liked it, and that's saying something.

A Statement About Gav, Stace, and Why Everyone Should Get BBC America

Hiya Everyone!

I was supposed to write through the Next Big Event in Book 2 of the trilogy, but it's late and, per usual, I have been procrastinating by watching my new TV obsession, Gavin & Stacey.

Rumo(u)r has it they are bringing a version over to the States, and if they do it right, it will be a sight to see.  Gavin & Stacey follows the story of an average boy and an average girl who fall in love over the phone at work (he does something with computers in Essex, she does something with accounts in Wales... it really doesn't matter).  In the pilot they meet, followed swiftly by I Love Yous, Engagement, Wedding, and Living Happily (?) Ever After.  Simple enough, right?

Alas, behind the simplicity is the genius.  Gavin & Stacey was created by James Cordon and Ruth Jones, who do not play Gavin and Stacey.  Instead, they play his and hers friends, respectively, leading a shockingly hilarious cast of secondary characters (his parents, her widowed mother, her uncle, as well as various friends scattered about).  As Vanessa ("Ness"), Ruth Jones is easily the highlight of the show, often dispatching wisdom based on life experiences (she is ageless, seems to have been married at least three times, had an affair with the former Deputy Prime Minister, been a producer for the BBC, and now works at the ticket counter at an amusement park...), while Smithy ("Smiffy") is a bumbling oaf of a man who is absurdly possessive of Gavin, and who lives his life to try every beer in existence.

Like How I Met Your Mother, which uses Allison Hannigan and Neil Patrick Harris (indeed, the better-known cast members) in supporting roles, the use of the show's creators and writers as non-titular characters is perfect-- it gives them the perspective to move away from the simplicity of the plot and delve deeply into hilarious character study.

I could easily go on for days about this show and how fantastically developed each of the characters is (except, ironically, for Gavin and Stacey themselves... they aren't one dimensional, but they are definitely the least interesting of the lot).  I won't go on and on and on, though.  I'll just say, get thee to BBC America.  

Or come over and we'll watch it on iTunes when I get home.

A Statement About My Oscar Picks

Here they are, people! Look alive!

BEST PICTURE

Slumdog Millionaire

I'm tired of hearing about it, and when it wins we can stop talking about it. Right?!

LONGSHOT: Milk

BEST ACTOR

Mickey Rourke

Oscar loves a comeback. Plus, who doesn't want to hear his speech?

LONGSHOT: Sean Penn

BEST ACTRESS

Kate Winslet

This could get seriously dicey, since she hasn't won any awards for this film that aren't in the supporting category, but they'll give it to her because it's about damn time.

LONGSHOT: Anne Hathaway

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Heath Ledger

Look, every single other man in this category has the ability to be nominated again. The Academy is too sentimental and the performance is too good for him to be overlooked.

LONGSHOT: Robert Downey Jr.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Penelope Cruz

I forgot how insanely insane she is in this movie until I rewatched the clips recently. Genius.

LONGSHOT: Amy Adams

BEST DIRECTOR

Danny Boyle

We can stop talking about it!!

LONGSHOT: Stephen Daldry

BEST ANIMATED PICTURE
Wall-E

If you don't agree, we stop being friends.

LONGSHOT: None.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Wall-E

I'm picking the longshot here, kids.

PROBABLE WIN: Milk

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Slumdog Millionaire

Whatever.

LONGSHOT: Frost/Nixon

BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM

Auf Der Strecke (On the Line)

Swiss. And dark. Can't go wrong.

LONGSHOT: New Boy (I met the filmmaker... cool chick)

BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM

Presto

Because that bunny is the cutest thing I have ever seen.

LONGSHOT: This Way Up

Well, that's it! Tune in next time for why everyone ever should watch Gavin & Stacey, why Lost might be the best argument for television as art, and why 30 Rock is still the best comedy on TV.

A Statement About WALL-E

There has been much said about the wonder that is the Disney/Pixar masterpiece, WALL-E, and I am pleased to report that nothing you have read has been exaggeration.  Like The Incredibles before it, WALL-E will win the Best Animated Feature Oscar, and was perfectly qualified to be a Best Picture contender. 

To start, it is a visual feast, from the rusty, dirty Earth that WALL-E inhabits, to the chrome and bleached shininess of the spaceship he eventually stumbles upon.  Yes, the film is a blatant attack on consumerism (see: WALL-E finding a diamond ring in a box... he keeps the box and trashes the ring), gluttony, and the waste that had pervaded our culture over the past several decades.  The humans in the story are hilariously dis-abled, unable to even stand without assistance.  They are carted around on portable beds, and none of them even realize there is a swimming pool on their spaceship until the video screens are forcibly removed from the front of their faces.

What I like about WALL-E, though, is that it might be the best love story I have seen in the past year.  Isolated and alone on his planet, one day WALL-E encounters EVE, a robot sent from the human ship to seek organic and sustaining life on Earth, life WALL-E himself only discovered shortly before her arrival.  Theirs is obviously a chaste love, this is Disney after all, and they are robots, but the depth of feeling they have is remarkable.  After finding WALL-E's plant, EVE shuts down to protect the specimen, and when she is called back to the ship, WALL-E follows her on a journey through space, to be with her and to make sure she is okay.

Likewise, when WALL-E is seriously injured in the film's climactic sequence, EVE rushes him back to Earth, replacing his damaged parts, willing him to live.  In the end, it is the physical spark generated by their "kiss" that makes him remember his true love.

It is thoroughly endearing, too, that the characters very rarely speak to each other-- he calls her E-VA, while her main vocabulary consists of her mission, her "directive."

If you haven't seen it already, watch it watch it watch it.  A while back we had a discussion about what is a "good" movie, and how that can be different from your "favorite" movie.  The Incredibles remains my favorite Disney/Pixar film, but it is indisputable that WALL-E is the best.