WHOA NEW POST! Hey, remember my pretentious rants, guys? Here comes another one, right atcha! Haha, "atcha," who do you think you are, Self? I think this may be a monster post, so beware. (As in really big, not with actual monsters. Only I would have to clarify that.)
Anyway, I've been doing lots of thinking lately about gender issues in the media. Random, right? Not really, actually. I've recently noticed a pattern in the fictional things that piss me off, and found that mostly they come down to gender issues. Now, my friends (anyone else automatically think of McCain saying that?), I'm about to confess something to you. A deep, dark secret from my past: when I was a kid, I totally wanted to be a boy. I really didn't like being a girl at all. Okay, go ahead and laugh. Get it all out of your systems. But I'm being completely serious. And I think I've figured out why that is, and how it is continuing to influence me.
I've always paid attention to the media, even when I was a small child. In Disney films and other media aimed at small children, the women were always the princesses--gentle waifs, who had very little personality (or a personality that may appear tough, but was ultimately weaker than that of the hero's--or worse, needed to be tamed), and existed simply to be rescued and be a test for the growth of the young man into The Hero. I have always had problems with this. ALWAYS. It drove my mother up the wall, since she always wanted me to be more feminine, but I really wanted to be The Hero. And since that was never the woman in the movies, my ten year old self decided that she wanted to be a man. That's right. I even got to the point where I liked men more than women on TV and in the movies. In fact, when I played Ninja Turtles with some guy friends, when I was like 6, I hated how they made me be April O'Neill, so they could rescue me. HATED IT. I mean, that's really messed up that as a girl, I hated my own gender because of how weak TV told me that I was. Stupid girls. *kicks can*
This changed at some point, since now I completely love being a woman (regardless of my dress code or personal upkeep of course). And I know why it changed. Buffy Summers. I really think she was the first girl I ever saw on TV, where I thought "I wanna be her." (Okay, possibly Agent Scully was the first, but point being, it was around the time I was 11.) This is why I am still in love with Buffy the Vampire Slayer and will defend it to anyone who looks down his nose at it. It's still possibly one of the greatest empowering TV shows for young women ever. She's The Hero. Nobody else even comes close, except maybe Spike towards the end, and that's when the show started to lose focus and get a little wonky. The point was about giving women the power, and I think more young girls need to get that message. It worked wonders on me and even got me to stop hating on my gender. Even better, women on that show got to be FRIENDS and not merely exist to be bitchy to each other and compete for the same men. Which is another issue I have with many shows these days. You never see them forming lasting friendships in comparison to the guy love that is all over the TV.
I've also realized that this issue is a huge part of my seething rage towards Twilight. It's a gazillion steps backwards from this Woman Saves Self attitude that Joss brought to Buffy. And what's worse to consider, how would it have affected me if I read it as a young girl? I mean, now I can read it and be all "psshaw, stupid girl falling for a dumb sparkly vampire. this is poorly written!" But what would I have thought then? That the only way I can be happy is by falling in love with some attractive jerkass? That I should defer my entire life to him? I don't care what anyone says, I don't think I would have liked this book if I read it during my pre-teen years. It would have probably caused me to still hate being a girl. And that is why I get such a negative visceral reaction to that damn series. Not just the idiocy of a sparkling vampire.
Okay, I know what you must be thinking: you're just not very romantic or into mushy stuff at all, are you? You hate romance, therefore you hate the idea of a woman being weak and always deferring to a man. Well, sorry good reader, but that's not true at all. In fact, I adore good romance. In every TV show I watch, I'm normally invested in at least one romantic couple. Probably overinvested actually. I still think Jim and Pam are an adorable couple. And if Sun and Jin don't get to be a happy family by the end of Lost, I'll be extremely upset. Buffy and Angel caused me much heart-wrenching agony when I was a teenager. They just could never be, but they loved each other so much! Woe! (despite my irrational hatred of star-crossed romances, this one always got to me) And I was invested in one particular couple on BSG (more on that later), to the point where my stomach was in knots during the finale. KNOTS! So yeah, guys, I do like romance. I still watch things like Love, Actually if I just need a pick me up. But I have an issue with the unequal roles men and women tend to play in many people's interpretations of romantic stories. I don't think a man trying to change or fix a woman is particularly romantic, personally.
I drifted a bit there. Sorry. But I also think this is the reason that I like so much Sci-Fi (Syfy?!) and Fantasy these days. That is the playground for strong, realistic women. Ellen Ripley was probably the first in modern, popular science fiction. Since then we have had Sarah Connor, Dana Scully, Kira Nerys, Buffy Summers, Eowyn (shut up, I still think she's awesome), Zoe Washburne, Cordelia Chase (before everything fell apart), Kara Thrace (STARBUCK!), and so on and so on. I don't count Leia, because she often had to be rescued by the men-folk (once in a gold bikini!), even though she is awesome in her own right.
In fact, I've gotten to the point where I judge Science Fiction TV shows almost solely on what kinds of strong women they give me. I adore The Sarah Connor Chronicles, and am still crossing my fingers for some miracle regarding renewal. And I fully admit that, like, 85% of my obsession for BSG is due to the wonder that is Starbuck. I also have recently come to terms with my total girl-crush on Katee Sackhoff (plays Starbuck) because she is so consistently awesome and straightforward in just about every interview I've seen.
Now, BSG actually does have quite a bit of gender fail (and race fail as well), for being such a "feminist" TV show. I think Ron Moore has some subconscious issues with women (Even Ron's view of Starbuck is somewhat problematic, and he apparently adores her.), and especially towards the end, many of the previously kickass women just lost all their ground. They either became bland counterparts to their men, turned evil, or, um, died. With some exceptions and reversals, so I don't think that's a spoiler. Also, gods forbid that any of them be friends with each other! Part of the reason I adore Starbuck is that the men in her life are counterparts to her. To touch upon the romantic pairing I was invested in, I'm actually much more in favor of Sam/Kara rather than Lee/Kara (the fan-preferred couple) for oh so many reasons. I'd go into them now, but some of you are still working through my DVDs, and I don't want to be all spoilers in your face. Plus, that's a huge rant, which is also a rant against the fandom in general, since most people wanted Lee and Kara to get together partly so he could fix her. That may give you an idea why I hate that pairing. I wish I were making that up. But that's a posting for another time.
I really wanted to link another random person's blog, where she discusses these issues far more eloquently than I have, but alas, it has BSG spoilers. So that'll have to wait for now.
How does this relate to me now, other than my overanalyzing my favorite TV shows? Well, think about what I want to be when I, heh, grow up. FBI Agent. And as a woman, I can totally accept that I could be one. Thank you, Agent Scully. Thank you, Buffy. It's funny, actually. I was emailing this guy I kind of dated last year, where I made a joke about really wanting to be the grizzled PI, in like, film noir. He responded "yeah, I can totally imagine you as the Girl Friday type." I made sure to make it very clear to him that I didn't want to be any Girl Friday to someone else's PI. I wanted to be the PI. Me! I think maybe that was the beginning of the end for anything between us, alas. But seriously! I want to be the one in control, making the melodramatic monologues under a slowly turning fan. I'm sure there are some deep, psychological reasons for this, but whatever. It's all true and I don't think it's a bad thing.
The worst part about this is, I know some people will be grossed out by what I am saying here. Not liking problematic gender issues gets equated to being a militant feminist for some. I bit my tongue a lot during college, and totally regret that now. And since when is feminist a bad word? Wanting men and women to be treated with equal respect is something good, right? I mean, I'm glad that I no longer want to be a boy, and I have a female-empowering TV show to thank for it. So, thanks Joss. Even if I think that Dollhouse has serious issues when it comes to gender (albeit intentional, I'm sure), you may just be able to salvage it. I really want to see Echo save herself. That is, if it's renewed. (PS-How Creepy is Paul Ballard? Agent Helo is kind of freaking me out)
/Pretentious rant
Showing posts with label pretentious rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pretentious rant. Show all posts
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Another Opinion about Vampires
Okay, I'm going to lay off the vampires soon, I swear. I have opinions for things other than blood-sucking creatures of the night. Really. But, for the record, I have one last thing to say right now. I have recently been enjoying the HBO series True Blood, which is from the creator of Six Feet Under, Alan Ball, and features vampires living amongst us, after they "come out of the coffin." Awesome.
Basically, the show stars Anna Paquin, Rogue from the X-Men series, as a young waitress in a small, rural swamp town in the Deep South. Her name is Sookie. Just bear with me, please; it's good--she even got a Golden Globe for her performance! Aaanyway, Sookie is actually telepathic, and constantly hears thoughts of all the creepy locals when she's doing her waitress thing, which makes her a little unstable. The locals all think she's crazy. Then a vampire walks in. They can now expose themselves to the public, because of a new synthetic blood drink (Tru Blood), created so they don't have to kill people. Sookie can't hear this vampire's thoughts, and is smitten soon thereafter. And her life, of course, gets increasingly complex. Plus people start mysteriously dying.
Now, I've been wanting to see this show for quite some time. I'll probably read the original books too. But I am very glad I saw this after reading Twilight. It's funny, actually. Many of the themes of the TV series are crazy similar to the Twilight series. I will admit that both Sookie and Bill (the main vampire) have some Mary Sue traits. The idea of telepathy that doesn't work with a love interest (although the "readers" are reversed in the two series) thereby increasing interest, a vampire and human falling in love against both of their kinds' rules, a "shapeshifter" ::coughwerewolfcough:: being the third party in a bizarrely fantastical love triangle, and so on and so on. But why do I love True Blood, and can't handle Twilight?
Sookie is, at times, a damsel in distress. Bill does try to protect her for her own good. Her blood is implied to be "special" just like Bella Swan's is. (could have something to do with her telepathy) But this doesn't make me angry, like Twilight does. Why?
Maybe it's because it plays with trope and convention, and almost uses vampirism as a metaphor for another social group experiencing prejudice trying to belong. In fact, one of the posters declaiming vampirism simply states "God Hates Fangs." Sound familiar? The reason that it's different, though, is because VAMPIRES ARE ACTUALLY SOMEWHAT DANGEROUS. And we very clearly see that vampires can be an actual threat. I mean, I know objectively that the vampires in Twilight are supposed to be a threat, because everyone says they are. I don't want to be told! I want to see how bad vampires can be. THEN let the main character make her life choice. And not have a spiffy vampire family all willing to die to protect her. Bill may be a tragic character in the vampire world, but can she hack standing up to real vampires who see her as just a "blood sack?" She actually does a pretty good job. By herself. Sookie Stackhouse is actually not a total Mary Sue, unlike Bella Swan.
I think, more than that, the reason I like this show much better is the depth and darkness of the world shown. All the characters are real people going through real things. The writing is far superior, and very bad things happen to all of these characters. Let me repeat, VERY BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO ALL OF THESE CHARACTERS. There are no easy outs, and every person does good and bad things with actual consequences. Plus it's more, um, adult in theme. Since it's an HBO show, there has to be sex. I mean, it's like part of a showrunner's contract at HBO. But, in this context, it makes total sense. Vampires, like all other monsters which come from the id, are supposed to deal with these sorts of themes. Twilight tried to sidestep it, and pay brief lip service to the fact that vampirism (okay at least in modern interpretation) is basically a metaphor for sexuality let loose. (think about how vampires kill people, and tell me that doesn't represent sex) It didn't work, because Stephanie Meyer also wanted to showcase Mormon ideals, which, to me at least, are completely incompatible with what vampires really are. Plus, why are they high school students again?
In True Blood, vampires and sex and danger and blood are all rolled into one. It's very intense and scary and at times self-destructive. A whole subculture of "fangbangers" exists, who are looked down upon by both humans and vampires. The world just seems much more, well, complete. And I like that. I like seeing a real world integrated with vampires where everyone acts real. And different. Some vampires are good when people are bad, and some vampires are bad when people are good. And sometimes you can't tell. But every character is interesting, even when you can't stand them. That's what Alan Ball is good at.
So, yeah, I'm trying to see the differences. Maybe it's the fact that the vampires are scarier (also scarier, when vampires in the True Blood universe get staked. nightmare fuel unleaded), the characters are more flawed, or the setting is more real. Maybe it's the fact that the story exists outside of just being a vehicle for star-crossed lovers. I don't know. I just respond better to this TV show. Maybe I just don't like teen girl fiction anymore? That might actually be the main reason. Hrmm.
In the meantime, check out the opening title sequence for True Blood. I've had the song stuck in my head for, like, four days. It really sets the tone of the series extremely well.
Basically, the show stars Anna Paquin, Rogue from the X-Men series, as a young waitress in a small, rural swamp town in the Deep South. Her name is Sookie. Just bear with me, please; it's good--she even got a Golden Globe for her performance! Aaanyway, Sookie is actually telepathic, and constantly hears thoughts of all the creepy locals when she's doing her waitress thing, which makes her a little unstable. The locals all think she's crazy. Then a vampire walks in. They can now expose themselves to the public, because of a new synthetic blood drink (Tru Blood), created so they don't have to kill people. Sookie can't hear this vampire's thoughts, and is smitten soon thereafter. And her life, of course, gets increasingly complex. Plus people start mysteriously dying.
Now, I've been wanting to see this show for quite some time. I'll probably read the original books too. But I am very glad I saw this after reading Twilight. It's funny, actually. Many of the themes of the TV series are crazy similar to the Twilight series. I will admit that both Sookie and Bill (the main vampire) have some Mary Sue traits. The idea of telepathy that doesn't work with a love interest (although the "readers" are reversed in the two series) thereby increasing interest, a vampire and human falling in love against both of their kinds' rules, a "shapeshifter" ::coughwerewolfcough:: being the third party in a bizarrely fantastical love triangle, and so on and so on. But why do I love True Blood, and can't handle Twilight?
Sookie is, at times, a damsel in distress. Bill does try to protect her for her own good. Her blood is implied to be "special" just like Bella Swan's is. (could have something to do with her telepathy) But this doesn't make me angry, like Twilight does. Why?
Maybe it's because it plays with trope and convention, and almost uses vampirism as a metaphor for another social group experiencing prejudice trying to belong. In fact, one of the posters declaiming vampirism simply states "God Hates Fangs." Sound familiar? The reason that it's different, though, is because VAMPIRES ARE ACTUALLY SOMEWHAT DANGEROUS. And we very clearly see that vampires can be an actual threat. I mean, I know objectively that the vampires in Twilight are supposed to be a threat, because everyone says they are. I don't want to be told! I want to see how bad vampires can be. THEN let the main character make her life choice. And not have a spiffy vampire family all willing to die to protect her. Bill may be a tragic character in the vampire world, but can she hack standing up to real vampires who see her as just a "blood sack?" She actually does a pretty good job. By herself. Sookie Stackhouse is actually not a total Mary Sue, unlike Bella Swan.
I think, more than that, the reason I like this show much better is the depth and darkness of the world shown. All the characters are real people going through real things. The writing is far superior, and very bad things happen to all of these characters. Let me repeat, VERY BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO ALL OF THESE CHARACTERS. There are no easy outs, and every person does good and bad things with actual consequences. Plus it's more, um, adult in theme. Since it's an HBO show, there has to be sex. I mean, it's like part of a showrunner's contract at HBO. But, in this context, it makes total sense. Vampires, like all other monsters which come from the id, are supposed to deal with these sorts of themes. Twilight tried to sidestep it, and pay brief lip service to the fact that vampirism (okay at least in modern interpretation) is basically a metaphor for sexuality let loose. (think about how vampires kill people, and tell me that doesn't represent sex) It didn't work, because Stephanie Meyer also wanted to showcase Mormon ideals, which, to me at least, are completely incompatible with what vampires really are. Plus, why are they high school students again?
In True Blood, vampires and sex and danger and blood are all rolled into one. It's very intense and scary and at times self-destructive. A whole subculture of "fangbangers" exists, who are looked down upon by both humans and vampires. The world just seems much more, well, complete. And I like that. I like seeing a real world integrated with vampires where everyone acts real. And different. Some vampires are good when people are bad, and some vampires are bad when people are good. And sometimes you can't tell. But every character is interesting, even when you can't stand them. That's what Alan Ball is good at.
So, yeah, I'm trying to see the differences. Maybe it's the fact that the vampires are scarier (also scarier, when vampires in the True Blood universe get staked. nightmare fuel unleaded), the characters are more flawed, or the setting is more real. Maybe it's the fact that the story exists outside of just being a vehicle for star-crossed lovers. I don't know. I just respond better to this TV show. Maybe I just don't like teen girl fiction anymore? That might actually be the main reason. Hrmm.
In the meantime, check out the opening title sequence for True Blood. I've had the song stuck in my head for, like, four days. It really sets the tone of the series extremely well.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Big Day, Yo
I voted, okay? However, this blog entry is not going to be about any of that. Yes, I know that today is exciting and nerve-wracking. I look forward to watching every hour of coverage tonight. I don't even want to get into this crazy dream/nightmare I had last weekend about how McCain won the election and nobody really cared.
I won't talk about that stuff now, because I need to talk about something else. This is a subject that bothered me for a while, and I am reminded of it more due to constant exposure during these times. I am referring, of course, to my love-hate relationship with the internet.
What I hate:
First of all, Internet, what's the deal with letting any kind of yahoo (see what I did there?) with a dial-up connection say whatever they want? Blah, blah First Amendment, blah. I know. But, at the very least, I'd like to see a basic spelling and grammar test before a person is able to post a comment to a blog or other public forum. This should take care of most trolls and spammers, since as a rule they seem incapable of stringing together even the most basic words into cogent arguments. And it'll make the rest of us try just a little bit harder to get our points across. Note: "Hi Freidlon7 sound like you doesn't like America.I know alot Western Europe jealouse with USA,without USA Europe is nothing . USA always help Europe in World War I & II.Sweden neutral because they are weak.Don't worry abaut my husband country just take care your own dame country because I know your country alot crime and terorist too." [big ole sic] This is not an argument. Please learn how to spellcheck, and maybe I'll listen to your opinions. Maybe.
Secondly, going off of this point, we need to eliminate anonymous comments. Nobody would ever say anything like that to a person's face, particularly a person who is better spoken with a tight grasp on actual, um, facts. The anonymity of the internet creates jerks, and sometimes I just can't handle it.
Thirdly, for the benefit of internet land, speaking in all caps isn't funny. YOU ARE YELLING. That doesn't make your point better; it just makes you more obnoxious. All caps can be used sparingly to great effect, BUT JUST NOT AS A RULE. Ahem. Also, for everyone who types out their handles like, oh, say **~~>HoTtIePrInCeSs2008<~~**: what the hell am I supposed to do with that? If all caps is yelling, I don't even know what's going on there. It is not cute. You are not instantly adorable. I have an instant appraisal of your IQ, though, however fair or unfair that may be. And enough with the ASCII art. When done well, it's cool, and on occasion funny; when done poorly, it's annoying.
Fourthly, Shock Sites. Good god, shock sites. Anyone can get to them. I won't mention any by name, but one prominent one rhymes with "flew pearls done sup." Just thinking about it squicks me out. The internet reminds me constantly that some people just ain't right.
I'm sure there are more reasons that I will inevitably remember after posting this.
But I like the Internet too!
Here, take some reasons:
1. The very idea of message boards and fan sites makes me unbelievably happy. Seeing people who share your interests from all around the world is a pretty amazing thing. I never actually post on any of these things, but I usually like to check them out to see what people are arguing about this time. Bonus points if they're well-written.
2. Internet memes are actually pretty funny for a little while. LOLCats and the like can be cute and entertaining. Sometimes people can be remarkably clever when they're not being weird and gross.
3. Dr. Horrible. That is all. (Sometimes I just find reasons to link to it)
4. I suppose the instant access to news about what's going on in the world is pretty awesome. Terrifying in some respects, but awesome.
Oh and other stuff I suppose. I got tired halfway through writing about the negatives, so I'm just not feeling this anymore. I'm sorry. The dark side of the internet has weakened me. Hey, it's gotta be doing something right, though, to be weaning me off of watching TV. I didn't turn my TV on much at all over the weekend. It felt good.
So, um, yeah. Go vote if you haven't already.
That's all.
I won't talk about that stuff now, because I need to talk about something else. This is a subject that bothered me for a while, and I am reminded of it more due to constant exposure during these times. I am referring, of course, to my love-hate relationship with the internet.
What I hate:
First of all, Internet, what's the deal with letting any kind of yahoo (see what I did there?) with a dial-up connection say whatever they want? Blah, blah First Amendment, blah. I know. But, at the very least, I'd like to see a basic spelling and grammar test before a person is able to post a comment to a blog or other public forum. This should take care of most trolls and spammers, since as a rule they seem incapable of stringing together even the most basic words into cogent arguments. And it'll make the rest of us try just a little bit harder to get our points across. Note: "Hi Freidlon7 sound like you doesn't like America.I know alot Western Europe jealouse with USA,without USA Europe is nothing . USA always help Europe in World War I & II.Sweden neutral because they are weak.Don't worry abaut my husband country just take care your own dame country because I know your country alot crime and terorist too." [big ole sic] This is not an argument. Please learn how to spellcheck, and maybe I'll listen to your opinions. Maybe.
Secondly, going off of this point, we need to eliminate anonymous comments. Nobody would ever say anything like that to a person's face, particularly a person who is better spoken with a tight grasp on actual, um, facts. The anonymity of the internet creates jerks, and sometimes I just can't handle it.
Thirdly, for the benefit of internet land, speaking in all caps isn't funny. YOU ARE YELLING. That doesn't make your point better; it just makes you more obnoxious. All caps can be used sparingly to great effect, BUT JUST NOT AS A RULE. Ahem. Also, for everyone who types out their handles like, oh, say **~~>HoTtIePrInCeSs2008<~~**: what the hell am I supposed to do with that? If all caps is yelling, I don't even know what's going on there. It is not cute. You are not instantly adorable. I have an instant appraisal of your IQ, though, however fair or unfair that may be. And enough with the ASCII art. When done well, it's cool, and on occasion funny; when done poorly, it's annoying.
Fourthly, Shock Sites. Good god, shock sites. Anyone can get to them. I won't mention any by name, but one prominent one rhymes with "flew pearls done sup." Just thinking about it squicks me out. The internet reminds me constantly that some people just ain't right.
I'm sure there are more reasons that I will inevitably remember after posting this.
But I like the Internet too!
Here, take some reasons:
1. The very idea of message boards and fan sites makes me unbelievably happy. Seeing people who share your interests from all around the world is a pretty amazing thing. I never actually post on any of these things, but I usually like to check them out to see what people are arguing about this time. Bonus points if they're well-written.
2. Internet memes are actually pretty funny for a little while. LOLCats and the like can be cute and entertaining. Sometimes people can be remarkably clever when they're not being weird and gross.
3. Dr. Horrible. That is all. (Sometimes I just find reasons to link to it)
4. I suppose the instant access to news about what's going on in the world is pretty awesome. Terrifying in some respects, but awesome.
Oh and other stuff I suppose. I got tired halfway through writing about the negatives, so I'm just not feeling this anymore. I'm sorry. The dark side of the internet has weakened me. Hey, it's gotta be doing something right, though, to be weaning me off of watching TV. I didn't turn my TV on much at all over the weekend. It felt good.
So, um, yeah. Go vote if you haven't already.
That's all.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
I Just Flew In from [insert generic city]
and boy are my arms tired! rimshot
That's what some people think about stand up comedy. Either that or an endless flood of mediocre, tasteless jokes told by an overgrown, possibly drunk frat boy who has been told he's funny his entire life. He's not.
I think this is why comedy has gotten such a bad rap from the public. It's not really seen as hard work, even though I think it's probably one of the hardest performance arts out there. Think about it. Last night I wanted to cheer when Kathy Griffin called Bullshit on Sarah Palin's difficulties as a woman in politics. Try being a female stand up comic indeed.
But, I do enjoy good comedy. Always have. I went through a rather, um, uncomfortable phase when I was determined to try it. I'm glad I talked myself down, because that would probably have been humiliating to the tenth degree. Plus, I'm not really that funny in person. I do respect people that can do that for a living, though. That takes mad skills and some rhino-thick hide.
Having said that, I tried to think about what I do find funny. Like, why do I like particular comedian/iennes and make it a point to revile others. I think it has to do with self-deprecation in comedy sets. I really like people who possess the ability to make fun of themselves, as it makes them much more human and really does provide an endless font of material. Kathy Griffin does that very well. Certainly she rips into other celebrities, but makes fun of herself the most. That's cool. Plus, I think she's genuinely a very funny person. Which I've discovered not all comedians actually are.
To be honest, I think I like female comics (on the whole) more than most male comics for that very reason. I feel like guys take themselves far more seriously than women do. Way to generalize and be stereotypical, Cristina; I know. But that's what I'm getting. Maybe that's because women have to work harder, and frankly be that much funnier to get crowds. The stereotypical comment that I've heard my whole life is that women are simply not funny. Many guys actually do think this.
Okay, so not true. But maybe they have to work harder to be found funny by people that think that. Also, it makes sense that women tend to have a different kind of sense of humor than men do, and rarely do the twain meet. I mean, don't get me wrong--I like comedy from male stand ups as well. Eddie Izzard is unbelievably amazing, and if it didn't cost the soul of my first born child to get into one of his shows, I'd go. (for a really great way to kill some time at work or um, at home, because being on the internet at work is WRONG: go here) But his comedy isn't really "guy comedy." You know the kind: ranting about the old ball & chain, talking about doing really stupid shit when drunk, and generally being an asshole to people. It seems crueler somehow. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that Kathy Griffin is an asshole to people. Certainly--it's her schtick. But not in that "guy" way. She has her reasons for being a jerk, and they make sense. She's all about taking people down, who kind of deserve it, not because she just wants to be mean. That's why celebrities hate her: she can see through them, and will let people know that.
Perhaps I'm overgeneralizing. I like lots of male comedians, and I get their jokes. George Carlin and Kathy Griffin can be enjoyed by the same people, and not just because the both say "fuck" a lot. I guess I'm getting sick of the smugness that lots of male comics bring to the table. I think, as a rule, women don't get that way, because expectations are different for them. If a woman brings down the house, you know she earned it all the way.
[ETA: This has nothing to do with comedic actors. That's something different. This is about stand-up comedy, which is probably a dying art. Different rules and different set of standards.]
Much of this has probably been fueled by the simple fact that I cannot stand Dane Cook. He's just not funny, and pretty much exemplifies how people think that "random" is funny. It's not. Stop feeding his ego, people. Maybe then people will stop paying him to be in really horrible-looking movies. Think of the children!
Maybe I'm just looking for another way to cry "Misogyny!" This is probably very unfair to lots of male comedians who have also had to rise through the trenches to get where they are now. Even Jeff Foxworthy had to work hard to perfect his "you might be a redneck" sets. I just want to see more funny women these days. I know they're out there somewhere, biting their tongues at some jerk guy who just told a really bad joke.
And if anyone thinks I'm being unfair (which I may very well be) or has any thoughts on the matter, please comment! I'm still trying to parse my own feelings about this. I probably won't even get argumentative and defensive with you!
And now, take my wife! Please!
That's what some people think about stand up comedy. Either that or an endless flood of mediocre, tasteless jokes told by an overgrown, possibly drunk frat boy who has been told he's funny his entire life. He's not.
I think this is why comedy has gotten such a bad rap from the public. It's not really seen as hard work, even though I think it's probably one of the hardest performance arts out there. Think about it. Last night I wanted to cheer when Kathy Griffin called Bullshit on Sarah Palin's difficulties as a woman in politics. Try being a female stand up comic indeed.
But, I do enjoy good comedy. Always have. I went through a rather, um, uncomfortable phase when I was determined to try it. I'm glad I talked myself down, because that would probably have been humiliating to the tenth degree. Plus, I'm not really that funny in person. I do respect people that can do that for a living, though. That takes mad skills and some rhino-thick hide.
Having said that, I tried to think about what I do find funny. Like, why do I like particular comedian/iennes and make it a point to revile others. I think it has to do with self-deprecation in comedy sets. I really like people who possess the ability to make fun of themselves, as it makes them much more human and really does provide an endless font of material. Kathy Griffin does that very well. Certainly she rips into other celebrities, but makes fun of herself the most. That's cool. Plus, I think she's genuinely a very funny person. Which I've discovered not all comedians actually are.
To be honest, I think I like female comics (on the whole) more than most male comics for that very reason. I feel like guys take themselves far more seriously than women do. Way to generalize and be stereotypical, Cristina; I know. But that's what I'm getting. Maybe that's because women have to work harder, and frankly be that much funnier to get crowds. The stereotypical comment that I've heard my whole life is that women are simply not funny. Many guys actually do think this.
Okay, so not true. But maybe they have to work harder to be found funny by people that think that. Also, it makes sense that women tend to have a different kind of sense of humor than men do, and rarely do the twain meet. I mean, don't get me wrong--I like comedy from male stand ups as well. Eddie Izzard is unbelievably amazing, and if it didn't cost the soul of my first born child to get into one of his shows, I'd go. (for a really great way to kill some time at work or um, at home, because being on the internet at work is WRONG: go here) But his comedy isn't really "guy comedy." You know the kind: ranting about the old ball & chain, talking about doing really stupid shit when drunk, and generally being an asshole to people. It seems crueler somehow. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that Kathy Griffin is an asshole to people. Certainly--it's her schtick. But not in that "guy" way. She has her reasons for being a jerk, and they make sense. She's all about taking people down, who kind of deserve it, not because she just wants to be mean. That's why celebrities hate her: she can see through them, and will let people know that.
Perhaps I'm overgeneralizing. I like lots of male comedians, and I get their jokes. George Carlin and Kathy Griffin can be enjoyed by the same people, and not just because the both say "fuck" a lot. I guess I'm getting sick of the smugness that lots of male comics bring to the table. I think, as a rule, women don't get that way, because expectations are different for them. If a woman brings down the house, you know she earned it all the way.
[ETA: This has nothing to do with comedic actors. That's something different. This is about stand-up comedy, which is probably a dying art. Different rules and different set of standards.]
Much of this has probably been fueled by the simple fact that I cannot stand Dane Cook. He's just not funny, and pretty much exemplifies how people think that "random" is funny. It's not. Stop feeding his ego, people. Maybe then people will stop paying him to be in really horrible-looking movies. Think of the children!
Maybe I'm just looking for another way to cry "Misogyny!" This is probably very unfair to lots of male comedians who have also had to rise through the trenches to get where they are now. Even Jeff Foxworthy had to work hard to perfect his "you might be a redneck" sets. I just want to see more funny women these days. I know they're out there somewhere, biting their tongues at some jerk guy who just told a really bad joke.
And if anyone thinks I'm being unfair (which I may very well be) or has any thoughts on the matter, please comment! I'm still trying to parse my own feelings about this. I probably won't even get argumentative and defensive with you!
And now, take my wife! Please!
Thursday, October 9, 2008
God Hollywood, Stop Sucking So Bad
I'm a creature of habit, as many of you know. I like to go home after a long day's work, play with the cats, surf the 'net (IF I EVER GET MY NEW COMPUTER), maybe pop some corn and catch up with my stories.
I have shows that I regularly watch and a few others that I'm just beginning to get into. For me, television is a necessary component in unwinding after a tiring [read:boring] day. I need something to grip me, or else I'll just slip into a stupor. Reading is great (especially for the bus rides), but sometimes I need to see the story. And there are some great ones out there.
Let me take this opportunity to thank the studios for finally paying their writers what they deserve, because some of the cleverest writing out there is on TV. I mean, it really makes sense, if you think about it: TV writers have to cram a full story into either 1 hour or 30 minutes. The dialogue has to be crisp and clever, and the story has to progress efficiently, with just enough left hanging to keep the viewer coming back for more next week. I like TV, okay.
I like certain shows, too. They may not always be the "best" shows on TV, but they normally have something fun to hook me with. Like Summer Glau. Speaking of Terminator: TSCC, I'm worried. I think they're going to cancel the show this season, because the ratings aren't that great. Okay, so it's the Terminator TV show. I get that people might think that's ridiculous. But, I actually really like it. Not only is it full of fun action sequences, but it's really secretly a heartwarming family show. With killer robots! And I fear for its safety. I really hope Fox doesn't pull the plug soon, but I think it's going to happen.
Pushing Daisies is adorable. It may push every boundary of realism, and be kind of sugary sweet, but it completely embraces it. It's so damn cute, and the stories are so bizarre and over the top that it actually really works. It's like if Tim Burton decided, "Hell with it, I'm producing something CHEERFUL." According to a headline I just read (which inspired this whole post), more people are watching Knight Rider, which is a horrific remake of a sci-fi TV show **coughbionicwomancough**. Really? That show doesn't even look fun, for all its flashy special effects. I don't think I have to worry about this show yet, but I'm more on edge than I want to be.
The Riches is officially cancelled. That really sucks, but I'm not surprised. FX didn't give it a good chance, and I think the Writer's Strike killed it, as the past season seemed really rushed and random. That's really a shame, because it was an interesting concept and I really enjoyed watching Eddie Izzard and Minnie Driver onscreen together.
Thank god for new pleasures. I'm always late in the game with certain shows, since my curiosity for them is inevitably killed by approximately 200 people ordering me to check out this particular TV show. I'm sure it's wonderful, but you sound like a crazy person. Don't you talk about "glass houses" to me! Stop it. There's a reason that I haven't actually watched The Wire yet. Anyway, I finally broke down and watched a House marathon on USA, and okay, crazy people, it's a really good procedural. And a breath of fresh air from the currently stale medical dramas and L&O. Hugh Laurie is kind of amazing, and I do have lots of fun playing "what else was he/she in?" with the guest stars. Seriously good guest stars. And did I mention Hugh Laurie? This is a good show to sit and watch if you have an hour to kill.
I'm finally watching Mad Men as well. And, AND, I watched it before it won the Emmy. Check my Twitter feed if you don't believe me. It's so good that I've got a series recording of it set up on my DVR. I don't do that for any other show. Even the shows that I actually do regularly record. Amazing cast (including the incredible Christina Hendricks AKA YoSaffBridge from Firefly), compelling scripts (Marti Noxon just joined the writing staff for anyone who might know who she is), and set/wardrobe to die for. I highly recommend it, although be warned, it's not a fast moving show, and you have to pay attention to details. I'm incredibly impressed that it actually won the Emmy, as it's not the flashiest show out there. But it certainly deserved it, in my point of view. Hollywood done good. Even though I read another headline somewhere that more people watch that horrible Scott Baio show than probably even know what Mad Men is. That's appalling, but I believe it.
Thankfully I've also got shows like The Office and 30 Rock (when it eventually comes back) to fall back on. But other than that, I can't help but think that TV is getting really, really bad. Did y'all see the previews for Kath & Kim? Yikes. Is this what the vast majority of America wants to see? Really?
Please stop taking away the shows that I do watch, in order to cater to the loutish masses.
Please.
Fine, I'll be over here waiting patiently for Dollhouse to premiere.
I have shows that I regularly watch and a few others that I'm just beginning to get into. For me, television is a necessary component in unwinding after a tiring [read:boring] day. I need something to grip me, or else I'll just slip into a stupor. Reading is great (especially for the bus rides), but sometimes I need to see the story. And there are some great ones out there.
Let me take this opportunity to thank the studios for finally paying their writers what they deserve, because some of the cleverest writing out there is on TV. I mean, it really makes sense, if you think about it: TV writers have to cram a full story into either 1 hour or 30 minutes. The dialogue has to be crisp and clever, and the story has to progress efficiently, with just enough left hanging to keep the viewer coming back for more next week. I like TV, okay.
I like certain shows, too. They may not always be the "best" shows on TV, but they normally have something fun to hook me with. Like Summer Glau. Speaking of Terminator: TSCC, I'm worried. I think they're going to cancel the show this season, because the ratings aren't that great. Okay, so it's the Terminator TV show. I get that people might think that's ridiculous. But, I actually really like it. Not only is it full of fun action sequences, but it's really secretly a heartwarming family show. With killer robots! And I fear for its safety. I really hope Fox doesn't pull the plug soon, but I think it's going to happen.
Pushing Daisies is adorable. It may push every boundary of realism, and be kind of sugary sweet, but it completely embraces it. It's so damn cute, and the stories are so bizarre and over the top that it actually really works. It's like if Tim Burton decided, "Hell with it, I'm producing something CHEERFUL." According to a headline I just read (which inspired this whole post), more people are watching Knight Rider, which is a horrific remake of a sci-fi TV show **coughbionicwomancough**. Really? That show doesn't even look fun, for all its flashy special effects. I don't think I have to worry about this show yet, but I'm more on edge than I want to be.
The Riches is officially cancelled. That really sucks, but I'm not surprised. FX didn't give it a good chance, and I think the Writer's Strike killed it, as the past season seemed really rushed and random. That's really a shame, because it was an interesting concept and I really enjoyed watching Eddie Izzard and Minnie Driver onscreen together.
Thank god for new pleasures. I'm always late in the game with certain shows, since my curiosity for them is inevitably killed by approximately 200 people ordering me to check out this particular TV show. I'm sure it's wonderful, but you sound like a crazy person. Don't you talk about "glass houses" to me! Stop it. There's a reason that I haven't actually watched The Wire yet. Anyway, I finally broke down and watched a House marathon on USA, and okay, crazy people, it's a really good procedural. And a breath of fresh air from the currently stale medical dramas and L&O. Hugh Laurie is kind of amazing, and I do have lots of fun playing "what else was he/she in?" with the guest stars. Seriously good guest stars. And did I mention Hugh Laurie? This is a good show to sit and watch if you have an hour to kill.
I'm finally watching Mad Men as well. And, AND, I watched it before it won the Emmy. Check my Twitter feed if you don't believe me. It's so good that I've got a series recording of it set up on my DVR. I don't do that for any other show. Even the shows that I actually do regularly record. Amazing cast (including the incredible Christina Hendricks AKA YoSaffBridge from Firefly), compelling scripts (Marti Noxon just joined the writing staff for anyone who might know who she is), and set/wardrobe to die for. I highly recommend it, although be warned, it's not a fast moving show, and you have to pay attention to details. I'm incredibly impressed that it actually won the Emmy, as it's not the flashiest show out there. But it certainly deserved it, in my point of view. Hollywood done good. Even though I read another headline somewhere that more people watch that horrible Scott Baio show than probably even know what Mad Men is. That's appalling, but I believe it.
Thankfully I've also got shows like The Office and 30 Rock (when it eventually comes back) to fall back on. But other than that, I can't help but think that TV is getting really, really bad. Did y'all see the previews for Kath & Kim? Yikes. Is this what the vast majority of America wants to see? Really?
Please stop taking away the shows that I do watch, in order to cater to the loutish masses.
Please.
Fine, I'll be over here waiting patiently for Dollhouse to premiere.
Monday, September 22, 2008
They Literally Sparkle. SPARKLE!
Okay, here's the deal: I kind of hate Twilight. To be fair, I never really thought I'd like it, but having sat through the first book, I can honestly affirm that it's not worth the hype.
Here's what I dislike about it:
1. The protagonist never has to work for a damn thing. NEVER. She is automatically (inexplicably) popular with everyone at her new school, including the mysterious hottest boy alive (or is he?!), and she can get pretty much anything she wants with remarkably little effort. Everything just kind of happens to her, which not only makes me bored with her, but does not advance the plot in any substantial way. Also, she's kind of annoying. As in, she treats everyone/everything she encounters with disdain automatically, and never seems to treat anything with proper respect as a default. I'm okay with an unlikable protagonist. It's interesting, and can be incredibly refreshing. But, I honestly think we're supposed to like her. What's worse, we're supposed to identify with her.
2. To go along with point #1, which is really like 3 points all together, the actual conflict of the book happens 375 pages in. HOLY CRAP, THAT'S BAD. The first 3/4 was total fluff. And not even believable fluff. And, on top of that, the conflict doesn't last for more than three or four chapters. Conflict is essential in driving both character and plot, so you can tell what I mean when I say that the vast majority of the story had zero conflict. Minor instances of confrontation (both physical and psychological) are taken care of almost immediately, and rarely by the protagonist herself. Blah.
3. Okay, this is the biggest one. For me, at least. The book pretty much has Victorian ideals. Edward isn't particularly charming, and worse, has completely antiquated values that are supposed to be seen as romantic and loving. Bella Swan has just thrust a new generation of women back into the 1800s, by being a supposedly smart, independent girl (inexplicably) falling in love with a jerkish, uptight, domineering guy. I don't care that he's randomly in love with you--you don't need to be protected. PROTECTED. GOD. It really doesn't help that the character of Edward is as cold as his body temperature. You know it's a bad sign when the only words to describe Edward are adjectives like "beautiful," "Adonis-like," and "statuesque." The last one I meant to mean like an actual statue. He's actually described to be hard as stone and just as cold. Not attractive. But apt in describing his personality. Good job, Bella, for telling a new generation of women that in order to be happy, they need to devote everything they have to one beautiful guy, regardless of any actual personality match, and let him tell them what to do/ protect them, oh those gentle waifs.
4. The vampires are so freakin' lame. For example, did you know that the true reason that vampires can't go out in the sunlight is because they sparkle. Like glitter in the sun. DUDE. What the hell? And they don't seem to be particularly threatening (at least so far in the series). Edward always talks about the drawbacks of being a vampire which, so far, seem to be the painful death/rebirth. Seriously? My favorite monster deserves so much better than that.
So that's my deal. I agree with one particular review I read where the reviewer said that it basically read like fluffy fanfiction. Totally. I mean, I do understand the appeal, and that's why I'm so upset--it had potential. Vampire love stories/romantic versions of vampires/ism are totally my bread and butter. I read Anne Rice's books (before she became born-again and renounced poor Lestat) and loved them. Lestat was an amazingly romantic/tragic vampire figure, with a teenage girl following. But at least those were well-written, regardless of soft-core pornographic influences.
[ETA: Perhaps the later books are deeper/better, but I don't care to find out. The actual reviews seem to indicate that they get worse as the series goes on, and I'll go along with that.]
I have to say, reading this after watching Buffy (I KNOW, I PROMISED NOT TO TALK ABOUT IT ANYMORE, BUT THIS IS RELEVANT. I'll stop yelling now...) makes me kind of uncomfortable. Buffy was a phenomenal role model for girls, even when she got all doe-eyed over attractive vampire men; this is because she always stayed true to herself and fought for her voice. It didn't matter that she is physically strong and "the chosen one," because we can identify with her personality--which is that of a very teenage girl. She goes through pain and heartache and dealing with jackass vampire boyfriends, but faces it head on and comes out stronger for it. I love Buffy for that. Bella Swan does nothing for me. I sincerely fear for girls who think that Bella Swan is a more relatable character than Buffy Summers.
To end this rant to end all rants, here is one webcomic that NAILS my thoughts on the book: Twilight Sucks.
Here's what I dislike about it:
1. The protagonist never has to work for a damn thing. NEVER. She is automatically (inexplicably) popular with everyone at her new school, including the mysterious hottest boy alive (or is he?!), and she can get pretty much anything she wants with remarkably little effort. Everything just kind of happens to her, which not only makes me bored with her, but does not advance the plot in any substantial way. Also, she's kind of annoying. As in, she treats everyone/everything she encounters with disdain automatically, and never seems to treat anything with proper respect as a default. I'm okay with an unlikable protagonist. It's interesting, and can be incredibly refreshing. But, I honestly think we're supposed to like her. What's worse, we're supposed to identify with her.
2. To go along with point #1, which is really like 3 points all together, the actual conflict of the book happens 375 pages in. HOLY CRAP, THAT'S BAD. The first 3/4 was total fluff. And not even believable fluff. And, on top of that, the conflict doesn't last for more than three or four chapters. Conflict is essential in driving both character and plot, so you can tell what I mean when I say that the vast majority of the story had zero conflict. Minor instances of confrontation (both physical and psychological) are taken care of almost immediately, and rarely by the protagonist herself. Blah.
3. Okay, this is the biggest one. For me, at least. The book pretty much has Victorian ideals. Edward isn't particularly charming, and worse, has completely antiquated values that are supposed to be seen as romantic and loving. Bella Swan has just thrust a new generation of women back into the 1800s, by being a supposedly smart, independent girl (inexplicably) falling in love with a jerkish, uptight, domineering guy. I don't care that he's randomly in love with you--you don't need to be protected. PROTECTED. GOD. It really doesn't help that the character of Edward is as cold as his body temperature. You know it's a bad sign when the only words to describe Edward are adjectives like "beautiful," "Adonis-like," and "statuesque." The last one I meant to mean like an actual statue. He's actually described to be hard as stone and just as cold. Not attractive. But apt in describing his personality. Good job, Bella, for telling a new generation of women that in order to be happy, they need to devote everything they have to one beautiful guy, regardless of any actual personality match, and let him tell them what to do/ protect them, oh those gentle waifs.
4. The vampires are so freakin' lame. For example, did you know that the true reason that vampires can't go out in the sunlight is because they sparkle. Like glitter in the sun. DUDE. What the hell? And they don't seem to be particularly threatening (at least so far in the series). Edward always talks about the drawbacks of being a vampire which, so far, seem to be the painful death/rebirth. Seriously? My favorite monster deserves so much better than that.
So that's my deal. I agree with one particular review I read where the reviewer said that it basically read like fluffy fanfiction. Totally. I mean, I do understand the appeal, and that's why I'm so upset--it had potential. Vampire love stories/romantic versions of vampires/ism are totally my bread and butter. I read Anne Rice's books (before she became born-again and renounced poor Lestat) and loved them. Lestat was an amazingly romantic/tragic vampire figure, with a teenage girl following. But at least those were well-written, regardless of soft-core pornographic influences.
[ETA: Perhaps the later books are deeper/better, but I don't care to find out. The actual reviews seem to indicate that they get worse as the series goes on, and I'll go along with that.]
I have to say, reading this after watching Buffy (I KNOW, I PROMISED NOT TO TALK ABOUT IT ANYMORE, BUT THIS IS RELEVANT. I'll stop yelling now...) makes me kind of uncomfortable. Buffy was a phenomenal role model for girls, even when she got all doe-eyed over attractive vampire men; this is because she always stayed true to herself and fought for her voice. It didn't matter that she is physically strong and "the chosen one," because we can identify with her personality--which is that of a very teenage girl. She goes through pain and heartache and dealing with jackass vampire boyfriends, but faces it head on and comes out stronger for it. I love Buffy for that. Bella Swan does nothing for me. I sincerely fear for girls who think that Bella Swan is a more relatable character than Buffy Summers.
To end this rant to end all rants, here is one webcomic that NAILS my thoughts on the book: Twilight Sucks.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
What, Are the Birds Going to Explode upon Impact?
Before I get into the inevitable rant, I've been trying to access the Dr. Horrible website all morning, since the first part of the epic supervillain musical is supposed to be posted today. The site has been clogged by too much traffic ALL MORNING. I guess rabid Joss Whedon fans (Whedonites? Whedonians? Whedes?) are all flocking in droves. DROVES. Can't say I blame them, really. I've been pretty consistently trying to get on since I remembered the first act was going to be posted today. Ah well, I'll see it eventually, and probably geek out over it here.
On to more pressing matters. It has recently come to my attention that a particular movie, which I enjoy highly in its original form, is being remade. That's right, Alfred Hitchcock's avian thriller, The Birds, is being remade. Guess who's the Executive Producer? Go on, take a guess. Give up? MICHAEL BAY. Yeah, Mr. Let's Sacrifice Plot Development so we Can Have Big Explosions and Improbable Action. This is the guy that RUINED the X-Men franchise for me, because he changed the whole tone of the series, making it more about action and less about the social issues, which is the heart of the X-Men series. Just because it's a comic book doesn't mean you can gloss over what Stan Lee actually wanted to say with the series. GOD.
And now I'm terrified. It's bad enough that Roman Polanski's Rosemary's Baby is being remade (yeah, by Mr. Bay again as Exec Producer), but why do you have to mess with Hitchcock? Isn't he the great standard many filmmakers aspire towards? Why would you mess with perfection? CGI does not, in fact, make everything better and more realistic.
I am making a big deal over this now, because I just recently watched The Birds, and loved it. Hitchcock dealt in times where visual effects were pretty nonexistent. He had to be inventive with camera angles and real bird wrangling and puppetry and use of the generally newish green screen technology. The part that made me believe that thousands of birds were attacking a small coastal community was the incredibly impressive acting as well as the suspense Mr. Hitchcock was so wonderful at producing with his cinematography and editing. I was on the edge of my seat worrying about these people (I admit, I'd never seen it before, and purposefully never spoiled myself so I'd be surprised). That's a good movie.
Michael Bay does not deal in movies of this sort. He goes for crazy action and cheesy scripts. I'm concerned. And, who the hell is going to be the leading lady in this movie? If it's Lindsey Lohan, I quit. The reason that I wanted to see The Birds is because I read a favorable review of The Happening once, which compare it to The Birds. After watching Hitchcock's movie, I concluded that the reviewer hadn't actually seen The Birds. The beauty of Hitchcock is he doesn't explicitly show violence happen, thereby creating a certain tension with an individual and heightening imagination. He's also SO VERY GOOD at dragging suspense out, and torturing his audience. By not showing anything graphically(or very little), Hitchcock allowed audiences to work for it more, thereby getting more involved in the story and the characters. For me, The Happening did the exact opposite, which I've already ranted about previously.
This should be a lesson to filmmakers, since I feel like I'm in a position to give filmmakers advice, of course. Just because you can do it does not mean you should do it. CGI should be used to enhance plot points, not replace them. I feel like that's where lots of people go wrong, and get too excited about showing ridiculous special effects. It's one thing if the movie is merely meant to be fun and a mindless adrenaline rush (like Wanted), but The Birds has already been done well, and I just don't think it's a movie that's worth redoing, especially since I doubt it'll be more interesting than the original.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe these remakes will rock. I just wish Hollywood would go back to being original and interesting. I miss that.
On to more pressing matters. It has recently come to my attention that a particular movie, which I enjoy highly in its original form, is being remade. That's right, Alfred Hitchcock's avian thriller, The Birds, is being remade. Guess who's the Executive Producer? Go on, take a guess. Give up? MICHAEL BAY. Yeah, Mr. Let's Sacrifice Plot Development so we Can Have Big Explosions and Improbable Action. This is the guy that RUINED the X-Men franchise for me, because he changed the whole tone of the series, making it more about action and less about the social issues, which is the heart of the X-Men series. Just because it's a comic book doesn't mean you can gloss over what Stan Lee actually wanted to say with the series. GOD.
And now I'm terrified. It's bad enough that Roman Polanski's Rosemary's Baby is being remade (yeah, by Mr. Bay again as Exec Producer), but why do you have to mess with Hitchcock? Isn't he the great standard many filmmakers aspire towards? Why would you mess with perfection? CGI does not, in fact, make everything better and more realistic.
I am making a big deal over this now, because I just recently watched The Birds, and loved it. Hitchcock dealt in times where visual effects were pretty nonexistent. He had to be inventive with camera angles and real bird wrangling and puppetry and use of the generally newish green screen technology. The part that made me believe that thousands of birds were attacking a small coastal community was the incredibly impressive acting as well as the suspense Mr. Hitchcock was so wonderful at producing with his cinematography and editing. I was on the edge of my seat worrying about these people (I admit, I'd never seen it before, and purposefully never spoiled myself so I'd be surprised). That's a good movie.
Michael Bay does not deal in movies of this sort. He goes for crazy action and cheesy scripts. I'm concerned. And, who the hell is going to be the leading lady in this movie? If it's Lindsey Lohan, I quit. The reason that I wanted to see The Birds is because I read a favorable review of The Happening once, which compare it to The Birds. After watching Hitchcock's movie, I concluded that the reviewer hadn't actually seen The Birds. The beauty of Hitchcock is he doesn't explicitly show violence happen, thereby creating a certain tension with an individual and heightening imagination. He's also SO VERY GOOD at dragging suspense out, and torturing his audience. By not showing anything graphically(or very little), Hitchcock allowed audiences to work for it more, thereby getting more involved in the story and the characters. For me, The Happening did the exact opposite, which I've already ranted about previously.
This should be a lesson to filmmakers, since I feel like I'm in a position to give filmmakers advice, of course. Just because you can do it does not mean you should do it. CGI should be used to enhance plot points, not replace them. I feel like that's where lots of people go wrong, and get too excited about showing ridiculous special effects. It's one thing if the movie is merely meant to be fun and a mindless adrenaline rush (like Wanted), but The Birds has already been done well, and I just don't think it's a movie that's worth redoing, especially since I doubt it'll be more interesting than the original.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe these remakes will rock. I just wish Hollywood would go back to being original and interesting. I miss that.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
It Didn't Happen
Hey, why haven't I been using labels? I can have fun with those.
Movie review Saturday! I guess. I just saw The Happening with the gang earlier today, and I can honestly say that it is one of the least entertaining movies I've seen in quite some time. Well, let me rephrase that. It was mildly entertaining, but mostly in a completely accidental way. I'd venture to say that it's the biggest Hollywood snuff film since The Passion of the Christ. It almost seemed like a poor adaptation of a somewhat clever book. The idea is actually great, and really creepy. The concept behind the movie warrants the Hitchcock comparisons that Shyamalan seems to get. However, the execution is more reminiscent of Michael Bay. Except with fewer explosions. The movie does have a few pros, however. A few. The cinematography and camera direction were actually pretty cool. I liked that he did lots of close-up shots of the characters' faces. You don't see that too much anymore, and it heightened the sheer terror of the situation. I liked the score--very creepy. I liked some of the intentional, albeit very random, jokes. I also liked that one shot with all the people on the street committing suicide with the cop's gun. I thought that was very well done and quite emotionally resonant. [ETA: Many thanks to Laura for reminding me that yet another pro of the movie was the sheer hotness of Marky Mark in the lead role. When he wasn't talking, I enjoyed his performance quite a bit. :D]
On to the cons. The script was terrible. The acting was awkward. They showed way too many of the deaths. It would have been much more successful, in my opinion, if they didn't show the people killing themselves quite as much. I couldn't watch half of the movie, and I'm not that squeamish. (Although it probably didn't help that I was nursing a hell of a hangover thanks to my coworkers) It's very obvious that M. Night Shyamalan can come up with great ideas, but is very bad at executing them. I'm now convinced that The Sixth Sense was a complete fluke. Although, I will admit that I liked Unbreakable, in a very geeky way.
What he should have focused a bit more on is the paranoia that the situation creates. He touches on it a bit, when they find that house with the inhabitants who won't let them in. But he could have done so much more with playing people off of each other. And can we talk about how much he hit us over the head with the grander messages in his works? I GET IT. It doesn't help that I just watched Pan's Labyrinth--one of the most beautiful and subtle and depressing and, in a weird way, uplifting movies I've seen in a long time. The worst part about this (from my checking out the internet forums) is that people who have deciphered the great mystery of the films take it upon themselves to criticize everyone who doesn't like these movies, and call them dumb for "not getting it." Getting a good point across by browbeating audiences does not make a movie good. I'll call this the "Crash Syndrome." Nobody tangentially insults my movie intelligence.
So, now, I'm officially done talking about that movie. I'm going to bed and sleeping off the headache.
Movie review Saturday! I guess. I just saw The Happening with the gang earlier today, and I can honestly say that it is one of the least entertaining movies I've seen in quite some time. Well, let me rephrase that. It was mildly entertaining, but mostly in a completely accidental way. I'd venture to say that it's the biggest Hollywood snuff film since The Passion of the Christ. It almost seemed like a poor adaptation of a somewhat clever book. The idea is actually great, and really creepy. The concept behind the movie warrants the Hitchcock comparisons that Shyamalan seems to get. However, the execution is more reminiscent of Michael Bay. Except with fewer explosions. The movie does have a few pros, however. A few. The cinematography and camera direction were actually pretty cool. I liked that he did lots of close-up shots of the characters' faces. You don't see that too much anymore, and it heightened the sheer terror of the situation. I liked the score--very creepy. I liked some of the intentional, albeit very random, jokes. I also liked that one shot with all the people on the street committing suicide with the cop's gun. I thought that was very well done and quite emotionally resonant. [ETA: Many thanks to Laura for reminding me that yet another pro of the movie was the sheer hotness of Marky Mark in the lead role. When he wasn't talking, I enjoyed his performance quite a bit. :D]
On to the cons. The script was terrible. The acting was awkward. They showed way too many of the deaths. It would have been much more successful, in my opinion, if they didn't show the people killing themselves quite as much. I couldn't watch half of the movie, and I'm not that squeamish. (Although it probably didn't help that I was nursing a hell of a hangover thanks to my coworkers) It's very obvious that M. Night Shyamalan can come up with great ideas, but is very bad at executing them. I'm now convinced that The Sixth Sense was a complete fluke. Although, I will admit that I liked Unbreakable, in a very geeky way.
What he should have focused a bit more on is the paranoia that the situation creates. He touches on it a bit, when they find that house with the inhabitants who won't let them in. But he could have done so much more with playing people off of each other. And can we talk about how much he hit us over the head with the grander messages in his works? I GET IT. It doesn't help that I just watched Pan's Labyrinth--one of the most beautiful and subtle and depressing and, in a weird way, uplifting movies I've seen in a long time. The worst part about this (from my checking out the internet forums) is that people who have deciphered the great mystery of the films take it upon themselves to criticize everyone who doesn't like these movies, and call them dumb for "not getting it." Getting a good point across by browbeating audiences does not make a movie good. I'll call this the "Crash Syndrome." Nobody tangentially insults my movie intelligence.
So, now, I'm officially done talking about that movie. I'm going to bed and sleeping off the headache.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)