A Statement About Buffy

I waited as long as I could, but I am pleased to report that I finally caved and started watching the inimitable Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

To be honest, I tried to resist for quite a while; traumatic high school memories kept me from admitting what appeared to others to be incontrovertible.  I am geek enough, dork enough, and ass-kicking-girl-loving enough to be as obsessed with Buffy as the rest.  

Of course it's ridiculous.  A sixteen year old petite blond charged with saving the world from vampires.  Naturally, her job as slayer is rather hard to hide, and she has just been kicked out of her school in LA when the show begins (she burned down the gym... you know, because there were vampires inside).  And it just so happens that her mother relocates them to Sunnydale, one of the most supernaturally active places in th country, if not the world.

It's all terribly convenient, so just get over it.  You're not watching for intrigue and surprising plot twists, you're watching for snappy dialogue, evolved characters, and David Boreanaz in all of his pre-Bones glory.  There's a larger mythology in the grand scheme of things to add originality of the Scooby Doo gang of characters, but I haven't yet gotten far enough with it to speak on it intellgently.

"Scooby Doo?" you ask.

"Scooby Doo," I nod sagely.

Buffy is like watching Scooby Doo with Daphne in charge.  She's got a Fred (some combination of her Watcher, Giles, and uber-hottie Angel), she's got a Shaggy (hapless Xander) and a Velma (pre-HIMYM Allyson Hannigan in full geektastic mode).  

Anyway, obviously it's not on TV anymore, but if you're not vampire/supernatural saturated from, you know, the entire pop-culture market, check it out on DVD.  I haven't made my final diagnosis yet, but the Buffster (as she is known in elite circles) may land next to Sydney Bristow amongst my favorite heroines.

A Statement About Arrested Development

OK, yeah... So that didn't work very well. We might have to put the critic internship on hold, well... for a bit.

Onward.

So Arrested Development. I know have listed the top Arrested Development moments in the past, but I don't think I have ever extolled the virtues of this late, great television show. At least, not in writing in this forum.

Let me start by saying that it might be the best comedy ever put on television.

I know, I know, controversial. Let me also say that I recognize MASH and Seinfeld as accomplishments in forwarding the medium, I recognize that they were mainstream darlings who extended and bettered the national discourse on just about everything.

It can be argued, though, that Arrested Development's power as a show was never hindered by self-importance and significance; the show went off the air with nary a whimper in the winter of 2006 and almost no one noticed. Until the rabid fans began converting the Ignorant into the Faithful, at which point Arrested Development turned into everyone's favorite cult show, and the standard by which acquaintances are judged against friends (Sample: you're at a party, and you say to someone "And that's why you don't use a one armed person to scare people." A blank stare indicates that this person should remain a mere acquaintance. The people who start jumping up and down and blathering about J. Walter Weatherman should be considered friends for life.) Those who know the difference between light and heavy treason receive permanent invitations to all family events.

Viewers were rewarded for their faithfulness with ongoing inside jokes, continuing themes, and genius casting stunts (see: Justine Bateman as real-life brother Justin's potential love interest. The ep is entitled "Family Ties." Seriously). The layers of comedy are so brilliant it's scary, and so subtle that one viewing is not sufficient to get all of the sight-gags, double-entendres, and innuendos.

Rumors have abounded in the past year that an Arrested Development movie is imminent; that everyone but Michael Cera has signed on, and that the writing has begun. Some might be scared at the prospect of their favorite TV show being turned into a film. Questions of faithfulness to the show itself, the quality of the film, the expression of the characters are perfectly reasonable, but not when it comes to AD. The actors are so dedicated, the writers so particular, that most of them said they were glad when it ended, that they would rather have gone out in the blaze of glory than run the show into the ground.

What does that mean for the movie? With everyone signing up, it can only mean it's going to be the best thing ever.

Seriously.

A Statement About the Critiques

Lady Liberty, in all of her "I know what's good for you, even when you don't" wisdom, has kindly (?) signed me up for an online movie critic internship.

"What does that mean?" you ask, confused.
"I have no idea," I reply, resigned.

But it looks like a cool thing. They send me assignments and I do them, and if they like me, really like me, something magical will happen.

So I'll start writing posts for that, and then transferring them here... So if you see a post with a repeat subject, or a really random exercise, that's why.

May the Force be with us.

A Statement About Valkyrie

OK, so this one time I was watching Quantum of Solace, and a preview of Valkyrie came on, reminding me that that movie existed, and that maybe I should talk about it.

I saw this film in London, and in the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I was invited to see it with a friend.  Otherwise, I probably would not have been bothered about it one way or the other.  It seems to me that there is only one character that Tom Cruise plays, and he has only done it really well twice; once in A Few Good Men, and once in Jerry Maguire.  Valkyrie adds another character to his roster, but I am not entirely sure how hard it is to play A Determined Man Willing To Die For His Cause.  Fine, whatever.

Which, coincidentally, is exactly how I feel about this movie.  It was fine.  A fine script, fine casting, fine special effects, fine story.  Fine fine fine fine fine.

Here's the problem:  Movies about historical events are tricky.  Not only are you telling a story that people already know the ending to, but you run the risk of losing credibility if the portrayal is even slightly off.  Valkyrie is anything but "slightly off."  Hence the incredible pointlessness of the film.

I cannot tell you how many times I have heard someone say "Titanic?  What's the point?  The boat sinks, right?"  Yes, the boat sinks.  But the suspense and interest of the story comes from how it sinks, and which of the characters (who we have had a bit of a chance to get to know) survive.  Not all of them do, you know.  Anyway, Valkyrie suffers from the opposite problem.  It's about an assassination attempt on Hitler that you know doesn't work.  Not only that, but if you're even remotely familiar with the Holocaust, you know that there was no way those who planned the assassination would survive the night, much less the war.  So here we are watching a movie for which we already know the outcome, watching characters whom we know are going to die.  Great.

While doing press for the film, Eddie Izzard, one of the many, many recognizable actors in the background (in fact, one of the few who was not also in the background of Pirates of the Caribbean... talk about distracting), mentioned the fact that this was a good film to be made for the morale of the German people.  Now, instead of there being only films about those complicit with the Nazis, there is one that shines as a beacon proclaiming that not all Germans cooperated, and not all of them stood by while evil took over.  An excellent point.  Finally a film that highlights that there was a resistance, no matter how brutally it was squashed.

If only the story made for a better film.

And yes, we're pink now.  Get over it.

A Statement About Chuck

As loyal readers know, Alias is one of my favorite shows.  Duh.  And until JJ and Jennifer get together to make a movie (which would really only work if Jack Bristow came back from the dead... We miss you Jack!), we'll have to settle for the intrigue of Lost, the angst of Mad Men, and the characterizations of How I Met Your Mother to get us through the night.

There are those who would argue that Chuck is a worthy successor to our beloved spy series; they would say that the mythology is as dense, the mysterious organizations are as threatening, the supporting characters are as engaging.

And to an extent, they would be right.

I have been skeptical about Chuck from the beginning, and started watching after Mr. Ausiello declared it the best comedy on television (for the record, he is wrong).  Anyway, there are things to love about this show, the characters being  one of them.  Chuck himself, the lovable Nerd Herd team leader who has had all of the United States government intelligence downloaded into his head (before the super terminal itself was destroyed, rendering him the only source of archived US intelligence... just go with it, people!), is infinitely relateable for the post Office Space generation; after having been kicked out of Stanford (long story), he has spent the better part of his twenties languishing in the Best Buy-esque Buy More, trying to figure out what next to do with his life.  His best friend is Morgan, the extreme loser-geek for whom Buy More is probably the last stop, but whose sense of humor, loyalty and cluelessness render him one of the best sidekicks since Marshall Flinkman.  Add in Chuck's beautiful and supportive sister Ellie and her exclamation spouting fiance Captain Awesome, (not to mention the rest of the Buy More staff), and you've got more likeable characters than exist on any other show on TV.

So what is there to be skeptical about?  Well, accepted plot absurdities aside, something is just not gelling on this show.  The ironically weak link is the whole CIA, undercover, Chuck-in-mortal-danger... plot.  In order to excuse the insanely hot CIA agent who has to watch him at all times, the cover is, naturally, that the two are in a romantic relationship.  Which is complicated by their actual feelings for each other and her professionalism... blah blah blah.  Except that there is very little chemistry between Chuck and his handler, Sarah (no Syd and Vaughn "Oh, you have a girlfriend?" moments here, kids!).  This is made more painfully evident by the sparkling chemistry between the actors playing Chuck and his sister Ellie... which is distracting to say the least.

As an action-comedy, Chuck succeeds as neither.  The action is neither hardcore nor particularly convincing, and the only funny characters are given very little screen time in their Buy More locale.  The comedy is clever, but again, not overwhelming.

Chuck is worth watching, but not worth watching with any sort of devotion.  Come for the Alias references, stay for the bright spots between plot points.

A Statement About Watchmen

Ah, the comic-book hero.  So noble.  So resilient.  So indefatigably honorable.  

Ha.

There is much to be said about Watchmen, and as previously promised, we will discuss it today based on its merits as a film, trying as hard as we can not to delve into what we know about the graphic novel.

To start, it's a very long film.  Obviously that's something to be aware of as you go in, but two hours and forty minutes with a good fifteen minutes of previews at the front (Star Trek!  Transformers! Terminator!) means you're sitting in your seat for close to three hours, and that can be difficult when one accounts for things like large sodas.  

Logically it makes sense for the film to be that long-- a comic arriving in 12 installments over the course of a year would require a lot of time to tell the whole story in one sitting, especially if the story has as much depth and scope as Watchmen does.

OK, fine.  So we accept the length. We accept, even, the idea that because we have not read the graphic novel the finer nuances of the film (an admittedly obsessive adaptation) might be lost on us.  Fine fine fine.  Let's watch the damn thing, already.

Watchmen is a striking film.  Visually it is stunning, and I imagine those lucky enough to live near an IMAX had an even better experience with this.  It is most striking, though, is the message relayed, a message The Dark Knight hit upon, but that Watchmen spells out explicitly: sometimes doing a bad thing is necessary to save people.  As the line in the film goes "Sometimes you need to kill millions to save billions."  Or something like that.

In this political climate, that message gave me a vaguely sinking feeling.  Like, is George W. Bush sitting at home in Crawford going, "See!  Even the dudes in the comic book understand that I will be vindicated by history!"

From what I have read, Watchmen is a seminal work of literature, beloved for its subversion and controversial matter, for spitting in the face of traditional comic story-telling.  As a film, it is a fairly average representation of comic (film) story-telling with a story that is bigger than could possibly be told on a traditional cinematic setting.  And in this era of Hope and Yes We Can and movement away from the past eight years, I'm not sure the film has found it's appropriate moment for cultural impact.

A (Very Delayed) Statement About the Oscars

So, with the full acknowledgement that this is over a week late, let us now discuss our thoughts on the Oscars in bullet point form:

*Hugh Jackman was wonderful.  Was he daring?  No.  Was he original?  No.  Was he exciting?  Hells yes.  It was clear that Jackman was respected and admired by everyone in the room (how many people have gotten standing ovations for the opening number?  Seriously.), and, unlike our dear friend Jon Stewart, he managed to be funny without terrifying the masses with the idea of a politically off-color joke.  The tribute to musicals might have been choppy and over the top, but that is no fault of Jackman's (Hello, Baz Luhrmann.  Have you ever met a musical number you couldn't make even more cheesetastic?).  Overall, he gets an A++ for style, class, and charisma.  Would like to see some fresh blood in next year, but he'll always be welcomed back.

*Am supremely embarrassed by the lack of short film knowledge exhibited in my picks and fully welcome my forced retirement as a result.

*Shocked shocked shocked by Sean Penn (even though I did call him as a long shot), but really thought Mickey Rourke would take it.  In retrospect he does lack the class that the Academy looks for in its winners, and that actually may have set him back in the dead-heat with Penn for the Best Actor trophy.

*I have officially decided that anyone who says Heath Ledger only won because he is dead has no idea what they are talking about, and they have clearly not seen The Dark Knight.  I'll say this one more time, and one more time only:  He would have won anyway, and to suggest otherwise is just about the biggest insult I can think of.  Not because it's a lack of respect for the dead, but because it's a lack of respect for a truly standout performance.

*How much do we love Anne Hathaway?  SO MUCH.

*How much do we love the past winners presenting the new winner?  Eh.  It was a cool idea, but it took a lot of time, and when the ceremony is in re-vamp mode after having been diagnosed as too long for the past decade, this is not the way to ensure a shorter running time.

Well, I guess that does it for now.  Coming up soon: Chuck (Why we like it even if we still remain skeptical), Rachel Getting Married, Why there might be a Blog Blackout (it's great procrastination when I don't want to write my novel!), and, just for shiggles, I'll review Watchmen before I've read the novel.  You know, to give it a fair shot as a film of it's own accord.

*How excited are you?  SO EXCITED.