Don Draper is a phantom. He's a hollow shell of humanity. He looks and acts like a human but underneath, it's cold darkness. He sits in a cloud of smoke, silent and stoic. He has rational and can talk himself out of a paper bag. Problem is, he's his own worst enemy. He's philanderer, a cheat and a drunk. He stole a man's identity in the Korean War and lived an alternate life from that point forward. He took care of the real Don Draper's wife in secret until she succumbed to cancer. He drove his brother away, and ultimately led him to commit suicide alone in his hotel room. He slept around on his wife for many years while driving himself towards an inevitable oblivion.
Bear in mind, that he's the hero of our show. Or rather, anti-hero. If anything we would see Peggy Olsen as the entry point of the story, the true story. She started out as a secretary for Don and worked her way up the ranks finally ending up as Don's trusted confidant. And she had finally had enough of Don's shenanigans, and jumped ship therby breaking Don's shell even worse. She's become the old pro at her new firm, treating her copywriters like Don would've treated her way back in season one. But not now. She's the trusted one. Even when she sneaks away to a movie and sees Don, the dynamic is still there. They're the old couple, the old pros. Together again for the first tim, you might say. If it weren't for the age gap and the outright respect they have for one another, they'd even be comfortable as lovers. The last moments of Peggy's story is that of her in Virginia on a company trip. The unpleasant view she gets from her window is not the view she would've gotten if she perhaps still worked for Sterling Cooper Draper Blank. The look on her face is a tell of disappointment.
If there's one character who draws the most dislikable behavior it has to be Pete Campbell. He's aiming to be Don Draper so bad, it's killing him. He's cheated on his wife, fathered a child with Peggy (unbeknownst to him), even convincing his wife that he needs an apartment in the city. He's been beat down this season, quite literally, and this episode it happened mulitple times. He had a fling with a woman, Beth a few episodes back and is still pining for her. He soon discovers that her husband is sending her to a hospital in the city to get ECT to cure her of her depression. Pete is angry with the man because he's a cheater and hates that the woman he cares for is getting psychiatric treatment, when her husband is the problem. Before she commits herself, she has one last fling with Pete. After the therapy, she won't remember him at all. Later, he visits her and she has no recollection of him. He recounts a story about a friend he's visiting in the hospital, who is very clearly him. basically, Pete is broken. He's far beyond repair and if this season were any indication, Pete would've been the clear winner in the, "Who Will Kill Themselves?" office pool. He stirs up a fight with the husband on the train and gets the beatdown harshly. He then causes a fight with the conductor and gets beaten down again. Grace thou art not Pete Campbell. He goes home and and lies about his broken face, he says he fell asleep while driving. His wife allows him to get an apartment, he has everything he wanted and yet, he's still alone. He's become Don.
Another noteworthy thing, is that this season has been fairly light on Betty Draper-Francis. She was once the former model seduced by Don Draper and became the cold, calculating housewife we know and loathe. She's now overweight due to a glandular problem. She's sitting in her dark castle and taking out her failures on her children. She hates what Megan, Don's new wife represents ... a new start. Megan's a free spirit, an oddly attractive girl with aspiring dreams to be an actress. Don impulsively married her after the events of "Tomorrowland,' the season four finale. They've clashed in a very, violent manner sometimes but they're a stronger couple for it. Megan became Don's wife and everybody at the office noticed it. She was good at her job. Very good. She had traces of Don and at the moment she pitches to the Heinz people in the episode, "At the Codfish Ball," you can see it. But she left the office a few episodes later, hellbent on pursuing her dream of acting. And she thinks she's found it in a commercial. She asks Don to let her in, to put her name in the casting pool. He refuses simply because he knows where that path leads. It leads to Betty. But, he relents in the end, and the last shot of Megan is her shrouded in light as Don walks away into the darkness. But from what? He's transitioning to become the phantom in the night.
The very last shot of the season is Don sitting at a bar. A very attractive girl walks up and inquires as if he's alone. He turns and we cut to black. We're left hanging in the darkness that Don is floating in. It's a very effective thing, cutting to black. It was employed in one of my favorite films of 2011, "Shame." The black represents what we don't know. It can mean anything and everything. It's why books are so great. You decide and you interpret. Did Don say yes? If so, he's turned against everything he's fought against this season. If he says no, then he's become a new man. He's becoming a human and not the hollow effigy of one.
One thing, I didn't particularly like about this episode was that they skimmed over the death of Lane. Nobody really mentions him outside of the occasional discussion over who gets his office and paying his wife back the five grand collateral that he put in the firm to start it up. I feel as if a powerful death should have been discussed and dealt with a lot more than that. But, oh well.
I liked a lot of episodes this season, probably more so than season three, which would be my favorite. I think back on, "Mystery Date," with it's fever dream atmosphere. It was practically a horror film, the thoughts that go through your mind as you wander the empty halls of the building you work in. If a spree killer exists elsewhere, surely they can exist in your city. I also liked "Far Away Places," an episode that broke traditional structure and showed three concurrent stories told all at once, rather than broken up over the hour. It was like watching "Pulp Fiction." And that final scene, was the most terrifying setpiece ever shown on the series. Don was a monster chasing Megan through their house was like watching Jason Voorhees terrorize the girl at the end of the film. It was pure suspense. It was beautifully done, it was domestic terror.
Mad Men continues to be a phenomenal show. I've always loved it and thankfully we don't have to wait two years to see what happens with the denziens of the maddest of men and women.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Summer Club Reading - Eerie, Indiana
Back in 1991, Eerie, Indiana premiered on NBC. It was created by Karl Schaefer and Jose Rivera, who had two tracks of mind in creating the series. One, to create a show for children that didn't pander to children and secondly, to have a fun and scary show. And you know what?
They succeeded.
Eerie, Indiana takes place in the titular town. We first meet Marshall Teller on his paper route. He's relocated from the dank, rotting Big Apple. He misses it. His father, Edgar is an inventor for a company in Eerie called "Things, Incorporated," and his mother, Marilyn is a party planner despite having lax organizational skills. His sister, Syndi is a regular, normal teenage girl. Marshall is the odd one out in his family it seems. But he notices that something is amiss in this 'burb. He sees an older, fatter Elvis on his route. He knows Bigfoot eats out of his trashcan. The town's population is 16,661. Gulp. He shares this with the only person that'll hear him out, Simon. Simon is a younger kid from his neighborhood who is ignored by his parents, so Marshall takes him under his wing. They know that something spooky is afoot in Eerie and they seem to be the only ones to do anything to try and stop it.
Originally, reviews for the show insisted that the show's true relation was that great masterpiece, "Twin Peaks." But I don't buy that, personally, I see it as more of a "Blue Velvet" type show. You know, a town with a darker undercurrent. Marshall and Simon are predicating Fox Mulder in the hunt for the truth and the idea of a town under duress from outside sinister forces is something that "Buffy the Vampire Slayer will run through for seven years. Eerie was ahead of it's time and it only lasted 19 episodes. I personally think that in 2012 this show would've lasted a longer life. Or at the very least gathered a cult following. But I digress, let's start this thing off.
"Foreverware"
In the beginning, when Marshall's family moved to the town, they were greeted by Betty Wilson and her twin boys, Bertram and Ernie. She is a salesperson for a tupperware-esque product called 'Foreverware.' It's a product that seems to have leaped in a time machine in the 60's and landed in the 90's. You can put a sandwich in there from 1957 and it would be as fresh as the day it was made. That sounds unhealthy but I digress When Simon and Marshall smell and look at it, it's a bologna sandwich sure enough. But Marshall accidentally leaves the container cracked open. So, after Betty Wilson peddles her wares and leaves the Teller house hold that day, little Bertram or Ernie (I'm not sure either) passes Marshall a note that says, "Yearbook, 1964" he's a little curious.
Sure enough, when he looks in the book, he sees two boys that are very similar looking to those mini-Othos, Bert and Ernie. Simon just thinks they've been in school since the 60's cause they aren't smart. Marshall knows that something's up. He goes over to the boys' house and sees that their mother seals them in giant Foreverware containers at night to prevent them from aging because their father ran away when they were younger and she doesn't want them to leave. Yikes, am I right?!? Soon, the boys beg Marshall to help them and so he sets about trying to free the boys from their eternal youth. Betty, the boys' mother is trying to woo Marshall's mother into becoming a salesperson for Foreverware by singing a jingle. I wish I could link to it. I just wish I could. It would blow your mind.
Late that night, Marshall sneaks into the boys' room and releases them from their slumber. They have a score to settle with their mother for not letting them age. Marshall leaves them be. Later, Marshall's mother discovers exactly what happens if you leave the container open just a crack, the results are not so great and that bologna sandwich turns into a goopy paste. Marshall's mother just thinks that Foreverware is defective. So, she goes over Betty's house and to her and Marshall's surprise, the house is up for sale. In the front yard, she sees two older twin boys hammering away at the For Sale sign. They helpfully inform them that Betty moved away and they thank Marshall and his mother. As they walk away, an older woman calls out to the twin boys asking who's out there. Marshall looks back terrified. He knows who that is. He adds the Foreverware container to his "evidence locker" and closes the case ... for now.
I think that this is a great start to the series. It knocks the little bit of exposition out in the pre-credits sequence. We don't need to worry about where Marshall and his family came from, although I'm certain that they would've mined that territory had the show lasted longer. It's a great dip into the strangeness of the show and a great first episode, although a cursory glance of the weirdness of the town is only skated over, which is unfortunate because it seems to be a fun little town, except you might also die.
Additional footnotes:
When you visit the dentist's office, it can be a terrifying experience. Especially for Marshall Teller, because as we know, life in Eerie is well, eerie. Especiall when your dentist is a great character actor like Vincent Schiavelli. Marshall's horrified to go because he knows exactly what may happen...he may have to get a retainer. Oh, and dogs are plotting to take over the town. But, oh, dentistry!
Sounds innocuous enough, right? Not for poor Steve. He's the unfortunate kid in school, who's cursed with the single most ridiculous overbite I've ever seen. He also enjoys eating a lot. One day, he's hanging out with Marshall and Simon, when he hears someone grumbling that they wish he'd drop his sandwich. It isn't Marshall and it isn't Simon. It's a dog sitting on the sidewalk. Yeah, you read it and I wrote it. The dog is drooling over the sandwich. Steve drops some and the dog hungrily gobbles it up. Marshall isn't certain yet, because it could just be radio interference or whatever else happens when you pick up signals from elsewhere. They run a test and sure enough, Steve hears the thoughts of the dogs. And what he hears is terrifying. The dog begins tussling with Simon on the floor and soon the thoughts become more and more violent. Simon escapes from the dog and the three boys become terrified. Until a little French poodle warns the bigger dog that they have a bigger plan at hand. The dogs run away and leave the boys scratching their heads.
As Marshall and Simon wander the town, using Steve as a megaphone for the dogs' thoughts, they soon discover that the dogs have malicious intent for the townsfolk. They plan on escaping from the dog pound and seeking vengeance for being kenneled up. For having to sleep outside in dog houses. No more they say, no more. They destroy the gas chamber where they put the pets down and take out the dogcatcher. They demand freedom. They force Marshall, Steve and Simon to release them from the cages and the boys oblige. Then, the leader, the french poodle thinks the boys have seen enough. She demands the dogs take the boys out, especially Metal-Mouth Steve. The dogs chase Steve away in the night. Marshall and Simon never see him again.
Later, Marshall returns from the dentist and his retainer ain't so bad after all. He sees the dog that initially threatened him and his comrades. It burps and a piece of Steve's retainer comes up. The dog runs away. Marshall picks up the retainer and sticks it in the "evidence-locker" and closes the case ... for now.
I did like this episode as well. It picks up fairly quickly but unfortunately as it rises and rises, it kind of deflates at the end. But the thing being that, it never betrays it's inspired lunacy. And another noteworthy fact, a kid actually dies. Not just gets attacked or saved at the last minute but gets eaten (offscreen of course). For the early 90's, that was crazy. I like the world of Eerie and dogs trying to attack humans just seems right, storywise.
Additional footnotes:
French Poodles are French. They speak in an exaggerated 'Pepe LePew' accent. Eight-year old me finds this hysterical.
The pre-credits sequence ends with a dog holding a gun. Silly, yes, because if the dogs can't open their doors to wreak havoc, they surely can't fire guns. Right? Ahem, right?
I will never get enough of the dogs sitting in a circle singing, "Dem Bones." They sounded like a barbershop quartet. It is fantastic.
The dog catcher service is called "Canine Assistance Team" or C.A.T
My original intent for the Summer Reading Club was that I would watch two episodes a week. But, this show's fantastic and the girlfriend and I have already watched episodes three and four. I'll just have another review coming later this week for the next two. Unless, I've watched the entire series at that point. Which at this point, is entirely likely.
Coming up, "The ATM with A Heart of Gold" and "The Losers."
They succeeded.
Eerie, Indiana takes place in the titular town. We first meet Marshall Teller on his paper route. He's relocated from the dank, rotting Big Apple. He misses it. His father, Edgar is an inventor for a company in Eerie called "Things, Incorporated," and his mother, Marilyn is a party planner despite having lax organizational skills. His sister, Syndi is a regular, normal teenage girl. Marshall is the odd one out in his family it seems. But he notices that something is amiss in this 'burb. He sees an older, fatter Elvis on his route. He knows Bigfoot eats out of his trashcan. The town's population is 16,661. Gulp. He shares this with the only person that'll hear him out, Simon. Simon is a younger kid from his neighborhood who is ignored by his parents, so Marshall takes him under his wing. They know that something spooky is afoot in Eerie and they seem to be the only ones to do anything to try and stop it.
Originally, reviews for the show insisted that the show's true relation was that great masterpiece, "Twin Peaks." But I don't buy that, personally, I see it as more of a "Blue Velvet" type show. You know, a town with a darker undercurrent. Marshall and Simon are predicating Fox Mulder in the hunt for the truth and the idea of a town under duress from outside sinister forces is something that "Buffy the Vampire Slayer will run through for seven years. Eerie was ahead of it's time and it only lasted 19 episodes. I personally think that in 2012 this show would've lasted a longer life. Or at the very least gathered a cult following. But I digress, let's start this thing off.
"Foreverware"
In the beginning, when Marshall's family moved to the town, they were greeted by Betty Wilson and her twin boys, Bertram and Ernie. She is a salesperson for a tupperware-esque product called 'Foreverware.' It's a product that seems to have leaped in a time machine in the 60's and landed in the 90's. You can put a sandwich in there from 1957 and it would be as fresh as the day it was made. That sounds unhealthy but I digress When Simon and Marshall smell and look at it, it's a bologna sandwich sure enough. But Marshall accidentally leaves the container cracked open. So, after Betty Wilson peddles her wares and leaves the Teller house hold that day, little Bertram or Ernie (I'm not sure either) passes Marshall a note that says, "Yearbook, 1964" he's a little curious.
Sure enough, when he looks in the book, he sees two boys that are very similar looking to those mini-Othos, Bert and Ernie. Simon just thinks they've been in school since the 60's cause they aren't smart. Marshall knows that something's up. He goes over to the boys' house and sees that their mother seals them in giant Foreverware containers at night to prevent them from aging because their father ran away when they were younger and she doesn't want them to leave. Yikes, am I right?!? Soon, the boys beg Marshall to help them and so he sets about trying to free the boys from their eternal youth. Betty, the boys' mother is trying to woo Marshall's mother into becoming a salesperson for Foreverware by singing a jingle. I wish I could link to it. I just wish I could. It would blow your mind.
Late that night, Marshall sneaks into the boys' room and releases them from their slumber. They have a score to settle with their mother for not letting them age. Marshall leaves them be. Later, Marshall's mother discovers exactly what happens if you leave the container open just a crack, the results are not so great and that bologna sandwich turns into a goopy paste. Marshall's mother just thinks that Foreverware is defective. So, she goes over Betty's house and to her and Marshall's surprise, the house is up for sale. In the front yard, she sees two older twin boys hammering away at the For Sale sign. They helpfully inform them that Betty moved away and they thank Marshall and his mother. As they walk away, an older woman calls out to the twin boys asking who's out there. Marshall looks back terrified. He knows who that is. He adds the Foreverware container to his "evidence locker" and closes the case ... for now.
I think that this is a great start to the series. It knocks the little bit of exposition out in the pre-credits sequence. We don't need to worry about where Marshall and his family came from, although I'm certain that they would've mined that territory had the show lasted longer. It's a great dip into the strangeness of the show and a great first episode, although a cursory glance of the weirdness of the town is only skated over, which is unfortunate because it seems to be a fun little town, except you might also die.
Additional footnotes:
- The pilot was directed by Joe Dante. His visual style will be handed over and emulated for the rest of the series, at least for the few episodes I've seen so far.
Yes, Marshall, a person who spells their name Syndi shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle.
Also, the older Bertram and Ernie are played by those reliable 90's twins, Dan and Don Stanton, whom appeared in "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" and "Gremlins 2: The New Batch. Another noteworthy appreance for horror aficnados Belinda Balaski appearing as one the Foreverware saleswomen. she's a stock Dante actress, appearing in "The Howling" and "Pirahna."
When you visit the dentist's office, it can be a terrifying experience. Especially for Marshall Teller, because as we know, life in Eerie is well, eerie. Especiall when your dentist is a great character actor like Vincent Schiavelli. Marshall's horrified to go because he knows exactly what may happen...he may have to get a retainer. Oh, and dogs are plotting to take over the town. But, oh, dentistry!
Sounds innocuous enough, right? Not for poor Steve. He's the unfortunate kid in school, who's cursed with the single most ridiculous overbite I've ever seen. He also enjoys eating a lot. One day, he's hanging out with Marshall and Simon, when he hears someone grumbling that they wish he'd drop his sandwich. It isn't Marshall and it isn't Simon. It's a dog sitting on the sidewalk. Yeah, you read it and I wrote it. The dog is drooling over the sandwich. Steve drops some and the dog hungrily gobbles it up. Marshall isn't certain yet, because it could just be radio interference or whatever else happens when you pick up signals from elsewhere. They run a test and sure enough, Steve hears the thoughts of the dogs. And what he hears is terrifying. The dog begins tussling with Simon on the floor and soon the thoughts become more and more violent. Simon escapes from the dog and the three boys become terrified. Until a little French poodle warns the bigger dog that they have a bigger plan at hand. The dogs run away and leave the boys scratching their heads.
As Marshall and Simon wander the town, using Steve as a megaphone for the dogs' thoughts, they soon discover that the dogs have malicious intent for the townsfolk. They plan on escaping from the dog pound and seeking vengeance for being kenneled up. For having to sleep outside in dog houses. No more they say, no more. They destroy the gas chamber where they put the pets down and take out the dogcatcher. They demand freedom. They force Marshall, Steve and Simon to release them from the cages and the boys oblige. Then, the leader, the french poodle thinks the boys have seen enough. She demands the dogs take the boys out, especially Metal-Mouth Steve. The dogs chase Steve away in the night. Marshall and Simon never see him again.
Later, Marshall returns from the dentist and his retainer ain't so bad after all. He sees the dog that initially threatened him and his comrades. It burps and a piece of Steve's retainer comes up. The dog runs away. Marshall picks up the retainer and sticks it in the "evidence-locker" and closes the case ... for now.
I did like this episode as well. It picks up fairly quickly but unfortunately as it rises and rises, it kind of deflates at the end. But the thing being that, it never betrays it's inspired lunacy. And another noteworthy fact, a kid actually dies. Not just gets attacked or saved at the last minute but gets eaten (offscreen of course). For the early 90's, that was crazy. I like the world of Eerie and dogs trying to attack humans just seems right, storywise.
Additional footnotes:
The pre-credits sequence ends with a dog holding a gun. Silly, yes, because if the dogs can't open their doors to wreak havoc, they surely can't fire guns. Right? Ahem, right?
I will never get enough of the dogs sitting in a circle singing, "Dem Bones." They sounded like a barbershop quartet. It is fantastic.
The dog catcher service is called "Canine Assistance Team" or C.A.T
My original intent for the Summer Reading Club was that I would watch two episodes a week. But, this show's fantastic and the girlfriend and I have already watched episodes three and four. I'll just have another review coming later this week for the next two. Unless, I've watched the entire series at that point. Which at this point, is entirely likely.
Coming up, "The ATM with A Heart of Gold" and "The Losers."
Friday, June 8, 2012
Summer Club Reading
I mentioned a couple of posts back, that I was going to choose a television series to review on a weekly basis. I decided this because I thought it would be a fun little journey for us to take together, for the ones who are at least following along with me. I was going to choose a short-lived television series or at the very least a truncated first season of a television series. It had to be one that was easily accessible to myself, and something that gave a serious nostalgia trip.
I chose Eerie, Indiana. It was a short-lived television series that ran on NBC from 1991 to 1992 and ran for 19 episodes. It's bite sized episodes, running at 25 minutes apiece prove that I can review at least two a week, starting with the pilot episode, "Foreverware," and continuing with the episode, "The Retainer." I'm very excited to revisit this show as it's been a very, very long time since I watched it as a child and even then it was too unique to fit in on television. I'm very excited about this experience and maybe you can join along with me.
So, what say you friendos? I chose this show because it's accessible to everybody (it's on Netflix Instant) and I hope that you'll join on this wacky, wild and extremely weird trip back to the 90's.
I chose Eerie, Indiana. It was a short-lived television series that ran on NBC from 1991 to 1992 and ran for 19 episodes. It's bite sized episodes, running at 25 minutes apiece prove that I can review at least two a week, starting with the pilot episode, "Foreverware," and continuing with the episode, "The Retainer." I'm very excited to revisit this show as it's been a very, very long time since I watched it as a child and even then it was too unique to fit in on television. I'm very excited about this experience and maybe you can join along with me.
So, what say you friendos? I chose this show because it's accessible to everybody (it's on Netflix Instant) and I hope that you'll join on this wacky, wild and extremely weird trip back to the 90's.
The Film ... Or The Book aka The Lady or The Tiger?
Why do book to movie adaptions often fall flat?
It's an honest question that puzzles me. This question rings in my head after I woke this morning to the news that Stephen King's "It" would be getting adapted for the big screen as two seperate films and honestly, the news excited me. "It" is a monsterous tome, clocking in at over 1,000 pages and is very dense but fast-paced, so of course two films would be perfect. The mini-series is the golden standard for children having nightmares, it's given kids post-traumatic stress disorder everytime they see Barnum and Bailey roll into town. So, why remake it? I mean, given Hollywood's crazed fervor to reboot, remake and pretty much squander every single property they can get their grubby, grobby hands on. But, in the case of King's work, most of the filmic adaptions if not all of them, beg to be remade.
It's simple, really. Reading a Stephen King is like opening a door in your mind. It's like drawing a chalk door on the wall and voila, doorway. Opening up a King book is like revving up a lawnmower on rabies and trying to hold on tight. King's prose is often long-winded but he's got a reason for it. He's layering, he's painting a story and your brain is his canvas. The words that he uses to get inside your head will twist and turn. You breathlessly trip over each word desperate to get to the end. Take, "The Shining," for example. You believe in this place. You feel trapped in the Overlook Hotel. It's claustrophobic. Is the hotel haunted? Maybe. But, that ain't the story, kiddies. It's Jack Torrance's story. You feel his struggle with drinking, his guilt over hitting his child. He becomes a faceless void over which you can project your own fears. Even myself with an evil father figure who I saw as the flesh and blood of scary Jack Torrance. It all culminates with him going lunatic and bashing the former caretaker and his wife with a handy-dandy croquet mallet. He finds the strength within himself and control the supernatural forces long enough to let the old man and his family escape before he blows himself and the hotel up, ensuring that the madness will never continue. That's a ride, am I right? But the movie ... oh, boy.
Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining," is a master class in how to make an epic horror film. It's long and slick, and the pacing really does allow you to sink into the neuroses of the Torrance family over their long winter stay in the Overlook. Except, their are a few problems with the film. I know, sacrilege, right? The opening credits with that great Wendy/Walter Carlos score tell you the exact feeling you should have. The biggest problem however lies with the casting. Sacrilege part two! When you see Jack Nicholson appear on screen, you don't buy him as a easy-going guy who could be driven mad. He straight up looks mad, like a stiff wind could drive his bats out of the belfry. Shelley Duvall is equally mis-cast. Wendy was written as a strong type who's driven to crack. Instead, she looks fragile as a mouse. Now, Scatman Crothers was perfect as Hallorann, can you dig it? It becomes a bloodless horror film, almost as if Kubrick knows he's performing a joke but forgets the punchline. All of the above being said, it's a great film. It's beautiful and stunning. The Steadicam shot prowl through the corridors and sooner or later fear grips you that something may pop out. And sometimes, it certainly does. And on Blu-Ray. the film looks even better. Still gorgeous like a tasty wine.
A funny thing happened though in the 90's. King's properties became hot, hot, hot commodities and soon enough "The Shining" was remade on ABC by Mick Garris and King himself. The casting was more appropriate and the book was true to life. It wasn't as harsh as King's book, simply because of the television disconnect. Almost all of his books have been adapted with little or no success. "The Dark Half," "Firestarter," and many, many of his short stories got the short shrift. Usually, the big successes were the was that had 'Darabont' or 'Reiner' in the credits. Even King couldn't be trusted with his own work. While "The Shining" and "The Stand" were adapted successfully, he fumbled the ball and tripped over it as well on "Desperation." That one was a big disappointment. Now, with Ben Affleck adapting "The Stand" as a potential trilogy and the notice of "It" being adapted in a similar manner, it appears that people are beginning to understand the scope, yes, there's the key word, scope of King's work.
But, sadly, he's not the only writer to fall victim to misadapted prose. Clive Barker has written some of the single best gothic literature in the past and present. My God, Books of Blood is the greatest collection of short stories since "Different Seasons," "Night Shift," or even "Four Past Midnight." I love 'Rawhead Rex' especially. God, what a great horror story. It's puritanical and diabolical. But, when it was adapted for the big screen, Barker vehemently opposed it. Yes, it is a paint by numbers version of a monster movie and is so clearly aping on "Alien." I'll admit that I'm a not-so secret fan of the film, I even possess a Fangoria with Rawhead on the front cover. But, Barker's frustration with the mangling of his work caused him to seek out and adapt his own works. He even stated that he doesn't want to end up like Stephen King. True story. Barker has made films but even his cinematic thumbprint has been smudged by Hollywood tampering ... but not for long. His "Cabal" cut of my personal favorite film of his, "Nightbreed," will hopefully be released soon.
Some films do get the correct treatment, a by-the-books treatment (ho-ho) if you will. Chuck Palanhuik had a great adaptation in "Fight Club," but most of his work is unfilmable. There's no way ever, you can adapt "Haunted." Period. His frantic, frenetic pacing and stream-of conciousness dialogue wraps it's way into your head. I loved the book, "Choke," but there was so much wrong with it from the top all the way to the bottom. Casting, important plot points being hacked out with a machete, etc. Except for Cherry Daquiri. But, that's it. As for Bret Easton Ellis, I've only seen two films that capture his true authorial essence. "American Psycho," and "The Rules of Attraction." "Psycho" is the more classically structured film but man, if you adapted it word for word, it would be X-rated and over four hours long. "Rules" on the other hand follow the skippy, unsure narrative that makes reading Ellis a treat. It's probably the pinnacle of a film's elements coming together and being true to the book.
My point, in all of this is, imagination is the strongest weapon we have. We dream up landscapes and we can make our own movies. When we read books, we've opened our eyes. This is a journey you take with the author of the piece. When you adapt a book to film, you're funneling the vision down. It's taking an interpretation and telling you how to interpret it. This is the horror of adaptation. Even if there are good adaptations, they'll never be better than the book.
But, you just know they're gonna try, right?
It's an honest question that puzzles me. This question rings in my head after I woke this morning to the news that Stephen King's "It" would be getting adapted for the big screen as two seperate films and honestly, the news excited me. "It" is a monsterous tome, clocking in at over 1,000 pages and is very dense but fast-paced, so of course two films would be perfect. The mini-series is the golden standard for children having nightmares, it's given kids post-traumatic stress disorder everytime they see Barnum and Bailey roll into town. So, why remake it? I mean, given Hollywood's crazed fervor to reboot, remake and pretty much squander every single property they can get their grubby, grobby hands on. But, in the case of King's work, most of the filmic adaptions if not all of them, beg to be remade.
It's simple, really. Reading a Stephen King is like opening a door in your mind. It's like drawing a chalk door on the wall and voila, doorway. Opening up a King book is like revving up a lawnmower on rabies and trying to hold on tight. King's prose is often long-winded but he's got a reason for it. He's layering, he's painting a story and your brain is his canvas. The words that he uses to get inside your head will twist and turn. You breathlessly trip over each word desperate to get to the end. Take, "The Shining," for example. You believe in this place. You feel trapped in the Overlook Hotel. It's claustrophobic. Is the hotel haunted? Maybe. But, that ain't the story, kiddies. It's Jack Torrance's story. You feel his struggle with drinking, his guilt over hitting his child. He becomes a faceless void over which you can project your own fears. Even myself with an evil father figure who I saw as the flesh and blood of scary Jack Torrance. It all culminates with him going lunatic and bashing the former caretaker and his wife with a handy-dandy croquet mallet. He finds the strength within himself and control the supernatural forces long enough to let the old man and his family escape before he blows himself and the hotel up, ensuring that the madness will never continue. That's a ride, am I right? But the movie ... oh, boy.
Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining," is a master class in how to make an epic horror film. It's long and slick, and the pacing really does allow you to sink into the neuroses of the Torrance family over their long winter stay in the Overlook. Except, their are a few problems with the film. I know, sacrilege, right? The opening credits with that great Wendy/Walter Carlos score tell you the exact feeling you should have. The biggest problem however lies with the casting. Sacrilege part two! When you see Jack Nicholson appear on screen, you don't buy him as a easy-going guy who could be driven mad. He straight up looks mad, like a stiff wind could drive his bats out of the belfry. Shelley Duvall is equally mis-cast. Wendy was written as a strong type who's driven to crack. Instead, she looks fragile as a mouse. Now, Scatman Crothers was perfect as Hallorann, can you dig it? It becomes a bloodless horror film, almost as if Kubrick knows he's performing a joke but forgets the punchline. All of the above being said, it's a great film. It's beautiful and stunning. The Steadicam shot prowl through the corridors and sooner or later fear grips you that something may pop out. And sometimes, it certainly does. And on Blu-Ray. the film looks even better. Still gorgeous like a tasty wine.
A funny thing happened though in the 90's. King's properties became hot, hot, hot commodities and soon enough "The Shining" was remade on ABC by Mick Garris and King himself. The casting was more appropriate and the book was true to life. It wasn't as harsh as King's book, simply because of the television disconnect. Almost all of his books have been adapted with little or no success. "The Dark Half," "Firestarter," and many, many of his short stories got the short shrift. Usually, the big successes were the was that had 'Darabont' or 'Reiner' in the credits. Even King couldn't be trusted with his own work. While "The Shining" and "The Stand" were adapted successfully, he fumbled the ball and tripped over it as well on "Desperation." That one was a big disappointment. Now, with Ben Affleck adapting "The Stand" as a potential trilogy and the notice of "It" being adapted in a similar manner, it appears that people are beginning to understand the scope, yes, there's the key word, scope of King's work.
But, sadly, he's not the only writer to fall victim to misadapted prose. Clive Barker has written some of the single best gothic literature in the past and present. My God, Books of Blood is the greatest collection of short stories since "Different Seasons," "Night Shift," or even "Four Past Midnight." I love 'Rawhead Rex' especially. God, what a great horror story. It's puritanical and diabolical. But, when it was adapted for the big screen, Barker vehemently opposed it. Yes, it is a paint by numbers version of a monster movie and is so clearly aping on "Alien." I'll admit that I'm a not-so secret fan of the film, I even possess a Fangoria with Rawhead on the front cover. But, Barker's frustration with the mangling of his work caused him to seek out and adapt his own works. He even stated that he doesn't want to end up like Stephen King. True story. Barker has made films but even his cinematic thumbprint has been smudged by Hollywood tampering ... but not for long. His "Cabal" cut of my personal favorite film of his, "Nightbreed," will hopefully be released soon.
Some films do get the correct treatment, a by-the-books treatment (ho-ho) if you will. Chuck Palanhuik had a great adaptation in "Fight Club," but most of his work is unfilmable. There's no way ever, you can adapt "Haunted." Period. His frantic, frenetic pacing and stream-of conciousness dialogue wraps it's way into your head. I loved the book, "Choke," but there was so much wrong with it from the top all the way to the bottom. Casting, important plot points being hacked out with a machete, etc. Except for Cherry Daquiri. But, that's it. As for Bret Easton Ellis, I've only seen two films that capture his true authorial essence. "American Psycho," and "The Rules of Attraction." "Psycho" is the more classically structured film but man, if you adapted it word for word, it would be X-rated and over four hours long. "Rules" on the other hand follow the skippy, unsure narrative that makes reading Ellis a treat. It's probably the pinnacle of a film's elements coming together and being true to the book.
My point, in all of this is, imagination is the strongest weapon we have. We dream up landscapes and we can make our own movies. When we read books, we've opened our eyes. This is a journey you take with the author of the piece. When you adapt a book to film, you're funneling the vision down. It's taking an interpretation and telling you how to interpret it. This is the horror of adaptation. Even if there are good adaptations, they'll never be better than the book.
But, you just know they're gonna try, right?
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
The Whedon Complex
Sometime last year, I added Netflix Instant streaming to my Playstation 3 (RIP). I was a kid in a candy store. I lept from movie to movie, from television series to television series at breakneck speeds. And finally when the proverbial red mist descended, I thought to myself, is there a series I want to watch? I thought long and hard on it. And I finally settled on a show, a groundbreaking series that I loved fondly as a youngster and I was certain I would again.
That show was "The X-Files."
I know you're thinking, what? This post has a title that would seem to differ from the show I chose. And to that I say, hold your horses, friendo. I'm getting to the Whedon of the thing. But, first we've gotta get through my revisiting of "The X-Files," and how it led me to a love affair with all things Joss Whedon. The first season of "The X-Files," is good. It's not as great as it would be in season two or three or even four. It's got a very Canadian feel to it, an almost murky undercurrent. When I originally watched the series, I was always a fan of the standalones, and not a fan of the alien mythology. I just don't find conspiracies scary. Period. I felt for Mulder and I rolled my eyes at Scully but it wasn't easy to track the mythology on an episode by episode basis. That's even with 'Tunguska-Terma/Herrenvolk' on the table. It has it's moments of humor but it's mostly colorless. I dredged through some terrible episodes until I finally gave up in the middle of season four. I did try Chris Carter's other series, "Millennium," and I have to say that even though that particular show makes you feel as if you need a Prozac IV, it's still a better show. There I said it.
And then I saw the light. I hovered over "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," and pressed play. That was the single best choice I ever made. I remember watching it back in 1997 when the WB was brand spanking new. That and ahem, "Dawson's Creek." Regardless, of my soapy teenage past, I instantly fell in love with Buffy ( and Sarah Michelle Geller...). It was fast paced, it was funny, it had hot girls and horror. So, of course I loved it. There wasn't a real complex mythology in the first season but that's the starting line, and baby what a start. But, what I saw after that was a true power in writing. The emotional beats were there and true to the characters. And that sole reason is attributed to Joss Whedon. He's a sucker punch to the heart. He knows how to pour the salt in the wound during the emotional moments. I raced through seven seasons of Buffy faster than four seasons of "The X-Files." That's gotta mean something, right? And after I finished Buffy, I went to Angel. I petered out soon thereafter because I was all angsted up. But this discovery of Whedon's immense power struck a note with me. Have I been ignoring his talent for this long? Of course, I had. I watched Firefly way after the fact but I loved it. I loved the follow-up film, "Serenity," and cursed his name when he killed off beloved characters. I do like "Angel," even if Whedon's hand is a lot less present than on other shows. I didn't even mind the much maligned Marti Noxon seasons of Buffy. Not at all. The only show I didn't fancy on first viewing was "Dollhouse." I don't know, the premise just seemed kind of rapey to me. But, I've misunderestimated his genius once....so I guess I'll check again.
And the funniest thing about all this Whedon love, the thing that gives me pause and makes me chuckle, is that Joss Whedon is the biggest poobah in Hollywood, right this very minute. Why's that so funny, you ask? Well, I'll tell you, dear reader. His shows never got the respect they truly deserved from the masses. Sure, they have a massive cult following and were renowned by the critics on arrival, but no one watched. Dollhouse and Firefly were knocked down before their time. Yes, Dollhouse got a second season but was still very much dead-on-arrival. Firefly was aired out of order and fell apart at the finish line. That specific shows following was loud enough to get a feature film, however. Even his tentpole shows, Buffy and Angel were battered and bruised. Buffy was cancelled and resurrected on a different network. But he survived all of that, and got the happy ending his characters rarely got. He wrote and directed a billion dollar grossing film. That's cool. So, maybe some people didn't see it for Whedon and that's fine. I did. And I was able to see his fingerprints all over "The Avengers." That made me happy. It's the reason why "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," is my favorite television series.
Because Joss Whedon is a better, smarter James Cameron. He's fully capable of crafting a gigantic film that grosses disgusting amounts of money and he did it with brains and he did it with heart. And that's all that matters.
That show was "The X-Files."
I know you're thinking, what? This post has a title that would seem to differ from the show I chose. And to that I say, hold your horses, friendo. I'm getting to the Whedon of the thing. But, first we've gotta get through my revisiting of "The X-Files," and how it led me to a love affair with all things Joss Whedon. The first season of "The X-Files," is good. It's not as great as it would be in season two or three or even four. It's got a very Canadian feel to it, an almost murky undercurrent. When I originally watched the series, I was always a fan of the standalones, and not a fan of the alien mythology. I just don't find conspiracies scary. Period. I felt for Mulder and I rolled my eyes at Scully but it wasn't easy to track the mythology on an episode by episode basis. That's even with 'Tunguska-Terma/Herrenvolk' on the table. It has it's moments of humor but it's mostly colorless. I dredged through some terrible episodes until I finally gave up in the middle of season four. I did try Chris Carter's other series, "Millennium," and I have to say that even though that particular show makes you feel as if you need a Prozac IV, it's still a better show. There I said it.
And then I saw the light. I hovered over "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," and pressed play. That was the single best choice I ever made. I remember watching it back in 1997 when the WB was brand spanking new. That and ahem, "Dawson's Creek." Regardless, of my soapy teenage past, I instantly fell in love with Buffy ( and Sarah Michelle Geller...). It was fast paced, it was funny, it had hot girls and horror. So, of course I loved it. There wasn't a real complex mythology in the first season but that's the starting line, and baby what a start. But, what I saw after that was a true power in writing. The emotional beats were there and true to the characters. And that sole reason is attributed to Joss Whedon. He's a sucker punch to the heart. He knows how to pour the salt in the wound during the emotional moments. I raced through seven seasons of Buffy faster than four seasons of "The X-Files." That's gotta mean something, right? And after I finished Buffy, I went to Angel. I petered out soon thereafter because I was all angsted up. But this discovery of Whedon's immense power struck a note with me. Have I been ignoring his talent for this long? Of course, I had. I watched Firefly way after the fact but I loved it. I loved the follow-up film, "Serenity," and cursed his name when he killed off beloved characters. I do like "Angel," even if Whedon's hand is a lot less present than on other shows. I didn't even mind the much maligned Marti Noxon seasons of Buffy. Not at all. The only show I didn't fancy on first viewing was "Dollhouse." I don't know, the premise just seemed kind of rapey to me. But, I've misunderestimated his genius once....so I guess I'll check again.
And the funniest thing about all this Whedon love, the thing that gives me pause and makes me chuckle, is that Joss Whedon is the biggest poobah in Hollywood, right this very minute. Why's that so funny, you ask? Well, I'll tell you, dear reader. His shows never got the respect they truly deserved from the masses. Sure, they have a massive cult following and were renowned by the critics on arrival, but no one watched. Dollhouse and Firefly were knocked down before their time. Yes, Dollhouse got a second season but was still very much dead-on-arrival. Firefly was aired out of order and fell apart at the finish line. That specific shows following was loud enough to get a feature film, however. Even his tentpole shows, Buffy and Angel were battered and bruised. Buffy was cancelled and resurrected on a different network. But he survived all of that, and got the happy ending his characters rarely got. He wrote and directed a billion dollar grossing film. That's cool. So, maybe some people didn't see it for Whedon and that's fine. I did. And I was able to see his fingerprints all over "The Avengers." That made me happy. It's the reason why "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," is my favorite television series.
Because Joss Whedon is a better, smarter James Cameron. He's fully capable of crafting a gigantic film that grosses disgusting amounts of money and he did it with brains and he did it with heart. And that's all that matters.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Spoiler Alert! (No, not really)
Gather 'round folks, I've got a question for you. It's one that rattles my brain from time to time and I figured now that I've got the soapbox, I might as well ask. My question is, in this age of technology, of Twitter and Facebook and any other social networking sites, are we really spoiler free?
I started thinking on this today in the wake of Sunday's "Mad Men." I wasn't able to watch it until this morning because I have a four car pile-up on my DVR on Sunday nights. That's understandable, right? Except when I look at my Twitter or my Facebook and I see some idiot who blurts out some major development and it ruins everything for me. Because I'm like an elephant, I never forget. Oddly, in regards to the episode of "Mad Men" in question, it didn't dull the shock. I still can't forget what I saw when I saw Lane Pryce dead. It's the same thing as when I saw Gustavo Fring *spoilers* dead in the season finale of season four of Breaking Bad. My biggest complaint about these people is that when you cry out about them spoiling the show, they get incredulous. "How dare you call me out? Why don't you watch it live like the rest of us?" By the way, I will say that I'm sort of gulity of this. I'm guilty of spoiling "Glee." I don't consider that as epic a spoil as a deep character driven show would have been. I would say that as much as I watch TV, my life doesn't revolve around it. Maybe in a sideways world, but not here in reality. No, sorry. So, I shield my eyes from whatever idiocy someone is spewing and move on down the line. It's how we have to roll in 2012. We live in a world of speculation. People sit around and read into things. If a man in black walks into a bar, people are gonna say, "Hmm, he's sinister." They won't relax and think he could be the savior. Reading into films and movies is overthinking it. If you've seen the film or television show before, then read between the lines. It's a fascinating experience. Trust me.
Of course, my thinking on this got me on to another tangentially related topic. Would this be the same if the internet presence was as heavy as it was twenty years ago? Probably so. After all, with shows like "The X-Files," "Twin Peaks" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" people would have not been able to keep the secrets those show revealed. Whedon was a saint in terms of writing but he loved to kill off multiple characters as much as he added them. People ruin things for people, period. There isn't a sense of expectation. It's why some people go to the end of the book and read the last line. Why? The fun rests in getting there. It's like a Lord of the Rings fan saying, "Oh, they get rid of the ring. Hmm."
Not all of the blame rests on the people who watch the show as well. If you watch a show where characters are getting killed off and often, a new casting announcement for a television series is a death warrant. It's practically walking the character down the 'ol Green Mile. We know about characters dying before the final three episodes of the season, simply because The Hollywood Reporter can't shut up about casting news. I remember the notorious "Walking Dead" spoiler that erupted out on the AMC (!) website. Somebody has to catch this.
Maybe I'm overthinking it as I'm apt to do. Maybe it's something I need to ignore. I just need to detatch from the computer and the smart phones and wait until I actually watch the show (which I usually do, but hey, shut up) but should it have to come to that?
I started thinking on this today in the wake of Sunday's "Mad Men." I wasn't able to watch it until this morning because I have a four car pile-up on my DVR on Sunday nights. That's understandable, right? Except when I look at my Twitter or my Facebook and I see some idiot who blurts out some major development and it ruins everything for me. Because I'm like an elephant, I never forget. Oddly, in regards to the episode of "Mad Men" in question, it didn't dull the shock. I still can't forget what I saw when I saw Lane Pryce dead. It's the same thing as when I saw Gustavo Fring *spoilers* dead in the season finale of season four of Breaking Bad. My biggest complaint about these people is that when you cry out about them spoiling the show, they get incredulous. "How dare you call me out? Why don't you watch it live like the rest of us?" By the way, I will say that I'm sort of gulity of this. I'm guilty of spoiling "Glee." I don't consider that as epic a spoil as a deep character driven show would have been. I would say that as much as I watch TV, my life doesn't revolve around it. Maybe in a sideways world, but not here in reality. No, sorry. So, I shield my eyes from whatever idiocy someone is spewing and move on down the line. It's how we have to roll in 2012. We live in a world of speculation. People sit around and read into things. If a man in black walks into a bar, people are gonna say, "Hmm, he's sinister." They won't relax and think he could be the savior. Reading into films and movies is overthinking it. If you've seen the film or television show before, then read between the lines. It's a fascinating experience. Trust me.
Of course, my thinking on this got me on to another tangentially related topic. Would this be the same if the internet presence was as heavy as it was twenty years ago? Probably so. After all, with shows like "The X-Files," "Twin Peaks" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" people would have not been able to keep the secrets those show revealed. Whedon was a saint in terms of writing but he loved to kill off multiple characters as much as he added them. People ruin things for people, period. There isn't a sense of expectation. It's why some people go to the end of the book and read the last line. Why? The fun rests in getting there. It's like a Lord of the Rings fan saying, "Oh, they get rid of the ring. Hmm."
Not all of the blame rests on the people who watch the show as well. If you watch a show where characters are getting killed off and often, a new casting announcement for a television series is a death warrant. It's practically walking the character down the 'ol Green Mile. We know about characters dying before the final three episodes of the season, simply because The Hollywood Reporter can't shut up about casting news. I remember the notorious "Walking Dead" spoiler that erupted out on the AMC (!) website. Somebody has to catch this.
Maybe I'm overthinking it as I'm apt to do. Maybe it's something I need to ignore. I just need to detatch from the computer and the smart phones and wait until I actually watch the show (which I usually do, but hey, shut up) but should it have to come to that?
Reviews : A quick note
I've stated a while back that I watch a lot of television and a lot of movies. I plan on reviewing the noteworthy television shows I watch but that also depends on timing and the hope that my DVR doesn't have a spasm like it did Sunday when "Game of Thrones" ran ten minutes over.I plan on reviewing stuff like "True Blood," "The Walking Dead," "Supernatural" and most definitely, "Breaking Bad." I realize I came into "Mad Men" at the end of the season but it impacted me so much that I just had to write about it. I'll be reviewing the season finale on Monday. That being said in regards to the filmic reviews, I try to get out to the cineplex as often as I can/afford to. This summer still has tons of great films coming out but I still plan on reviewing even the littlest of movies. I go to the art house just as much folks.
Another note, I'm planning on watching a one and done season of television. I'm thinking "Terriers" or something like that. And if you haven't watched "Terriers," you haven't lived. Most of the shows I watch are available on Netflix so anyone can follow along. If anyone has any recommendations, please comment and let me know.
Another note, I'm planning on watching a one and done season of television. I'm thinking "Terriers" or something like that. And if you haven't watched "Terriers," you haven't lived. Most of the shows I watch are available on Netflix so anyone can follow along. If anyone has any recommendations, please comment and let me know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)