Timothy Douglas seems a little nervous about the winter. When we meet up for coffee at Coffee Chicago in Andersonville, he’s heavily bundled and admits that he hasn’t experienced a full winter in a long time.
It may seem like an odd thing for a Chicago resident to say, but Douglas hasn’t been in Chicago for very long. He joined Lincoln Park-based Remy Bumppo Theater as artistic director in July of 2011, but prior to that, he was a freelance director for years, putting on shows in places as disparate as Louisville, Pittsburgh and New Zealand. His globe-trotting freelance career was something of an accident, according to him.
It’s a theme he revisits often when discussing his background: much of his success seems to have come as a surprise to him. It’s a funny concept when talking to someone who has a master’s degree from the Yale School of Drama.
“Even at a young age, I knew myself well enough to put this thought together: that I knew that I just wanted to be a star,” Douglas says, with a touch of amusement at his younger self’s single-mindedness. “I was really just living out a very active fantasy life.”
He assumed that “when the time came to separate the wheat from the chaff, I would just be weeded out and then I would figure out what I was doing with my life at that point.”
Douglas joined Remy Bumppo during a period of transition. He took over from founding Artistic Director James Bohnen and Executive Director Kristin Larsen was tasked with finding “something different.” She says, “I didn’t know what that something different was until I had my conversation with Timothy.” With other candidates, she had a dialogue, but no conversation.
Conversation and communication, as it turns out, are both very important parts of Douglas’ work process.
“I remember as an actor I was often in trouble with the directors because of the kinds of questions that I ask,” Douglas says. He wanted to know what was going to happen with the lights and why he was being given certain directions, not because he was resistant, but because he wanted a deeper understanding of what he was being asked.
The response from the directors he worked with was primarily frustration. Now that he finds himself in the hot seat, he says he gets to “satisfy a lot more curiosities I have about the storytelling on stage.”
He made the transition from acting to directing in 1994, a conscious choice because “I could no longer deal with the profession. I didn’t have the skin for it.”
Douglas says he loves the process of collaborating to put together a production and he admits that at heart he might always have been a director. “I don’t want to design for the designers,” he says. Rather, the look and feel of a production comes about from long conversations with the designers where all parties talk about how they think and feel about a play.
He’s particularly opinionated about the idea of contemporizing classic plays. “I’ve seen it so often diminish the play,” he says. His decision to set the current Remy Bumppo production of the 18th century Pierre Marivaux play “Changes of Heart” in 60s Chicago had to do with trying to help modern audiences have a greater understanding of the play itself.
The play involves a class-crossing romance between a prince and a commoner, an idea that would have been both shocking and “titillating” for contemporary audiences. “I felt if the American audience didn’t have an equivalent understanding or an equivalent titillation, there was no way I could deliver the core of what Marivaux was saying.”
He chose to cast the lovers as an interracial romance, in the hope that it would give American audiences a more visceral awareness of the class issues at the heart of the play. “I think our race challenge in America is actually primarily a class one. It just seems to be that the majority of those we would call lower or poor classes happen to be people of color, so I thought, well, that’s immediate, that picture.”
The next play on tap for Remy Bumppo is “Chesapeake”, by Lee Blessing. Douglas will be directing again and with the play’s focus on civil disobedience, it’s likely to fulfill their goal for thought provoking plays and community discourse.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Monday, November 21, 2011
Klingons!
Well, I've given the subject of this one away in the header. Did you know that there is a production of A Klingon Christmas Carol going on right now in Chicago? My understanding from Wikipedia was that Klingons are very warlike, but in person they were all quite nice. For an inside peek, watch the video below. Learn more about Commedia Beauregard, the theater company behind this show, here.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Did you know there is a museum of surgical science in Chicago?
Passersby might be forgiven for walking right past the International Museum of Surgical Science. The museum is tucked inside a historic mansion on Lake Shore Drive, huddled between high-rise apartment buildings. It shares space and administration with the International College of Surgeons, but inside, guests can view a veritable cornucopia of historical surgical paraphernalia.
One might think the mission of the museum is to make visitors glad they were born in the 20th century, but Lynnea Smith, Director of Education and Events, said the mission of the museum is to “help educate the public and enhance their appreciation and understanding of medical history.”
The museum spans four floors of the former home of Eleanor Robinson Countiss, who commissioned a mansion to follow the lines of Le Petit Trianon, a chateau on the grounds of Versailles. Listed in both the National and Illinois Register of Historic Places, it’s one of the few remaining lakefront mansions and is the only one open to the public.
Today, it houses such marvels as an iron lung, a series of terrifying implements that were once used for amputations (the resemblance of one of these to a s’more toasting fork is noticeable), a series of fetuses in various stages of development and actual footage of a brain surgery operation from 1953.
Other treasures abound in little pockets hidden throughout the building, like a display of an ophthalmic surgery kit from 1917 or Napoleon’s death mask (included because he was a supporter of new forms of medicine).
I know, you want to see what's in that eye surgery kit. You're in luck:
The top floor of the museum showcases contemporary art exhibits that link art and medicine, in an effort “to see how medicine can inspire artwork,” said Smith. Artist Julia Klein, creator of one of the two exhibits currently on display, said her work isn’t “medically oriented in any way other than the fact that for the last couple years I was using orthopedic casting tape,” but when she heard about the call for proposals, it seemed like a perfect fit.
Klein’s exhibit, called “Joint Work”, is a series of “articulated line-centric sculptures created from segments of wood bound together with orthopedic casting tape,” per the museum website. She said she hopes people can “make a connection between seeing the casting material used in a sculpture and thinking of that casting material being used on someone’s arm.”
Housing a museum in a mansion is not without its challenges. The museum had to be closed for two weeks at the end of August in order to deinstall an exhibit and then reinstall artifacts. “We don’t have a loading dock,” Smith explained. Despite these challenges, the museum also hosts special events. As Klein put it, “On one floor, you can get married, on the floor directly above, there’s the instruments that they use to drill into someone’s head.”
The museum is open 10-4 Tuesday through Friday and 10-5 on Saturday and Sunday for the courageous and the curious.
The above picture was one of the least terrifying pictures I took while visiting this museum. Pictures not included: a pile of kidney stones, a gallstone, and a display that tells the most horrifying amputation story ever.
Update: my mother says I should post the gross photo I showed her. So when you read this, remember, my mother suggested this go in the post.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
A visit to famed Chicago bookstore Quimby's and a book launch therein
Quimby’s bookstore, the Wicker Park mecca for independently-published and small press books, comics, and zines, celebrated the launch of David David Katzman’s new book, “A Greater Monster”, Thursday night.
“A Greater Monster” is about an ad executive who goes on two hallucinogenic trips before breaking into an alternate reality. Katzman calls it a “psychedelic fairy tale.” It was 7 years in the making and features 65 pages of illustration and links to two websites. Katzman worked with three professional musicians and a sound engineer to compose the music posted at one of the websites. The second link features an animated sequence from the book.
Katzman said the decision to include multimedia elements “happened very organically, as I was writing it.”
He said one of the main themes of the novel was changing perspective and point of view and instead of just accomplishing that through the point of view of the main character, he said he “wanted to change the perspective and point of view of a novel and of a reader.”
Quimby’s, according to their site, favors “the unusual, the aberrant, the saucy and the lowbrow.” They’re carrying Kaztman’s book on consignment, which they’ll do for any title that costs less than $25 retail, without review. “That’s one of the things that we’re really proud of, here, is that we provide a platform for authors to say what they want to say without any sort of review process or our values determining what gets on the shelf,” said Neil Brideau, a Quimby’s employee.
The store also accepts applications from authors who want to hold events at the store, though store manager Liz Mason said they were now getting too many applications to host everybody. However, Katzman has “been around in the independent publishing community for a while and we’ve always carried his books and he’s done events here and we’re excited about celebrating that release with him.”
Katzman self-published the book through his own publishing company and is in the process of choosing a distributor now. The book is available at Quimby’s in Wicker Park and on Amazon. If you're interested in what's involved in self-publishing, Katzman has been blogging about the experience on his website. Here's a closeup of that cover, which I loved:
You can also follow Katzman on Goodreads, where you can tell he has good taste because he's reading "Cloud Atlas". I don't think I've linked to Quimby's yet. Go to Quimby's! They have the most comprehensive FAQ section of any website, ever. I did a lot of research to come up with that fact, obviously. In all seriousness, their FAQ is a great resource for anyone interested in self-publishing comics, books, etc, or for learning more about the store itself.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
A night at Improv Olympic
I remember back in the days of yore, I once ditched a pep assembly. Back in yore, if you ditched a part of school, I think you were supposed to go out in the parking lot and smoke or something. Or maybe just leave. But I wouldn't know, because when I ditched that pep assembly, my friends and I snuck off to one of the theaters at my high school to play improv games. That is the kind of dangerous rebel I was back in those days. Anyway, apart from attending a few improv shows in college, it's been a while since I saw or participated in improv. I was a bit nervous about going to see a show at Improv Olympic. Did I still like improv? Did it just make me think of Michael Scott on the Office, introducing a gun into every scene?
As it turns out, the shows at Improv Olympic are quite excellent, mainly because all the groups are actually quite good at improvising, which is a skill we should appreciate when it's not being attempted by Michael Scott. I interviewed Cook County Social Club after their set, which you can listen to below. Obligatory links: check out Improv Olympic here and you can learn more about the charming fellows from Cook County Social club here.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Oh No! Doom gallery actually very pleasant, non-terrifying
Last week I checked out Oh No! Doom, an artists' collective/gallery in Bucktown. It's at 1800 North Milwaukee, and if you get there before the artists, you can just go down the street to the Wormhole cafe for a quick mug of cider and a game of Tetris.
I've posted a slideshow feature I created about the gallery below, but because of time constraints, I didn't give Lana Crooks a chance to describe what she does. She was at the gallery first and so I ended up asking her a lot of questions about the gallery itself. The mounted plush moose in the slideshow is hers, but in the interest of fairness, here's something else she did. She took this rocket ship:
And then turned it into this plushy squid rocket ship:
Oh No! Doom both sells and showcases art and if you want to check out the gallery, you can head over there Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. The Petit Monstres show mentioned in the slideshow is going to be up until November 12th, and then their next show will open on November 19th. Without further ado, here are the artists of Oh No! Doom describing what they do:
I've posted a slideshow feature I created about the gallery below, but because of time constraints, I didn't give Lana Crooks a chance to describe what she does. She was at the gallery first and so I ended up asking her a lot of questions about the gallery itself. The mounted plush moose in the slideshow is hers, but in the interest of fairness, here's something else she did. She took this rocket ship:
And then turned it into this plushy squid rocket ship:
Oh No! Doom both sells and showcases art and if you want to check out the gallery, you can head over there Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. The Petit Monstres show mentioned in the slideshow is going to be up until November 12th, and then their next show will open on November 19th. Without further ado, here are the artists of Oh No! Doom describing what they do:
Friday, November 4, 2011
Guild Complex rewards prose, performance
Entering the downstairs stage room at the Chopin Theater can make a person feel a bit like they’ve stepped into a different decade. The red walls and mismatched light fixtures are complemented by padded old-fashioned furniture, some of which faces the old man playing jazz piano on the stage and some of which faces the opposite wall for any guests interested in stimulating conversation.
The ambience gives the room a salon atmosphere, and on Wednesday night, the room played host to the Guild Complex Prose Awards, an annual award show put on by the Guild Complex, a literary organization devoted to supporting diverse and emerging voices through performances and readings. Six semi-finalists read their work aloud to an appreciative crowd and then both a non-fiction and a fiction prize were awarded.
The winning non-fiction piece was by Robert Hobson, a burly 22-year veteran of the US Army. When he read his piece, “Camel in the wire,” his delivery style was terse and unadorned, but within moments, audience members were riveted by his retelling of the taut, anguish-filled last moments of a camel that blundered into barbed wire at his base 22 miles from the border in Kuwait.
Hobson said the piece was a combination of two other pieces, because “some of the stuff was just too raw and when I combined them, I was able to push past some of the feelings.” It took him two years to write it, but he said he thought it was his strongest piece and he chose to send it to this competition because he wanted it to be read in a literary setting rather than in a military magazine.
Billy Lombardo was the big winner for fiction with his piece “All of our crosses.” A slim, tidy man who wore a necktie to the event, his reading style was quiet and understated, and his story about a man helping his elderly father shovel was both poignant and funny in the way it portrayed the ways parents can drive their children crazy while still inspiring profound levels of sympathy.
Lombardo said he was motivated to submit this piece because he’d written it recently and he knew he still wanted to work on it. He also won an audience award for his reading of it.
The goal of the contest is to “give space to emerging writers, underserved writers, and underserved audiences,” Kimberly Dixon, executive director of the Guild Complex, said. Dixon said they were most interested in pieces “if the work gets the listener or the reader to think differently about the world or to see the world in a new way and particularly if it uncovers something that might not normally get attention or get a voice.”
“The whole idea is create something that’s not currently out there,” Mike Puican, Guild board president, said. “We’re looking at blending poetry and theater, we’re looking at blending literature and music, or sometimes non-art mediums.”
The Guild Complex has two poetry performance programs this weekend, while visitors to the Chopin Theater can look forward to performances of the Nutcracker Thursday through Sunday through December and a magic show late Friday nights.
The Chopin Theatre is a gem, truly. Go check them out. They have shows all the time and owner Zygmunt Dyrkacz would love to talk to you about art.
If you're interested in the Guild Complex group, you can find more information about their events here.
The ambience gives the room a salon atmosphere, and on Wednesday night, the room played host to the Guild Complex Prose Awards, an annual award show put on by the Guild Complex, a literary organization devoted to supporting diverse and emerging voices through performances and readings. Six semi-finalists read their work aloud to an appreciative crowd and then both a non-fiction and a fiction prize were awarded.
The winning non-fiction piece was by Robert Hobson, a burly 22-year veteran of the US Army. When he read his piece, “Camel in the wire,” his delivery style was terse and unadorned, but within moments, audience members were riveted by his retelling of the taut, anguish-filled last moments of a camel that blundered into barbed wire at his base 22 miles from the border in Kuwait.
Hobson said the piece was a combination of two other pieces, because “some of the stuff was just too raw and when I combined them, I was able to push past some of the feelings.” It took him two years to write it, but he said he thought it was his strongest piece and he chose to send it to this competition because he wanted it to be read in a literary setting rather than in a military magazine.
Billy Lombardo was the big winner for fiction with his piece “All of our crosses.” A slim, tidy man who wore a necktie to the event, his reading style was quiet and understated, and his story about a man helping his elderly father shovel was both poignant and funny in the way it portrayed the ways parents can drive their children crazy while still inspiring profound levels of sympathy.
Lombardo said he was motivated to submit this piece because he’d written it recently and he knew he still wanted to work on it. He also won an audience award for his reading of it.
The goal of the contest is to “give space to emerging writers, underserved writers, and underserved audiences,” Kimberly Dixon, executive director of the Guild Complex, said. Dixon said they were most interested in pieces “if the work gets the listener or the reader to think differently about the world or to see the world in a new way and particularly if it uncovers something that might not normally get attention or get a voice.”
“The whole idea is create something that’s not currently out there,” Mike Puican, Guild board president, said. “We’re looking at blending poetry and theater, we’re looking at blending literature and music, or sometimes non-art mediums.”
The Guild Complex has two poetry performance programs this weekend, while visitors to the Chopin Theater can look forward to performances of the Nutcracker Thursday through Sunday through December and a magic show late Friday nights.
The Chopin Theatre is a gem, truly. Go check them out. They have shows all the time and owner Zygmunt Dyrkacz would love to talk to you about art.
If you're interested in the Guild Complex group, you can find more information about their events here.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Check out SOFA Chicago to see some art and learn a little
SOFA Chicago, the city's largest and longest continually running art fair, will be going on this weekend at Navy Pier. It’s an exposition of sculpture objects and functional arts. You can buy art or just look at it, depending on your mood or wallet. Admission is $15 or $25 for a three day pass.
The West Town art gallery and education center Intuit is also involved. They’re offering lecture series presentations and special exhibits, with lectures led by both emerging artists and academics. Topics range from explorations of artistic materials like glass, ceramics and wood to a discussion of artistic aspects of drinking vessels and customs.
SOFA will be showcasing more than 60 international art galleries and the Intuit Show of Folk & Outsider Art will feature 16 exhibitors.
SOFA’s focus is on sculptural and functional art whereas Intuit, according to their website, is the only nonprofit organization in the country dedicated to self-taught and outsider art. Intuit Board President Ralph Concepcion said the collaboration between the two groups works because the art the Intuit dealers sell complements the art at SOFA so well.
Concepcion said Intuit was initially planning to launch an outsider and folk art show on their own, but after consulting with Mark Wynam, owner of The Art Fair Company, they agreed that Wynam would produce the show as a separate but connected part of SOFA. “In the long run, it turned out to be a good fit with SOFA,” Concepcion said.
Earlier art shows had experienced some built-in conflict between the established high end art dealers and the dealers of self-taught art, who didn’t want to marginalize the work they carry, according to Concepcion. After the move to SOFA, “there wasn’t that same conflict,” Concepcion added. “We’re able to bring in galleries from all over the country and show the local audience here a wider variety of presentations of self-taught art.”
Donna Davies, director of SOFA, said, “We hope that there’s something for everybody.” She called SOFA a “venue to learn and make new discoveries” and pointed out that even if visitors are unable to make a purchase, they can still stop in at the lecture series and learn more about new forms of art.
This is the second year the two organizations have collaborated on the annual fair. Calling the outcome of the first year “tremendous,” Davies said, “The collectors were overjoyed to see some artists and forms that they hadn’t learned about.” She went on to call it “a wonderful partnership.” Concepcion echoed that sentiment, saying dealers “did well and the show looked good.”
The fair starts Friday, November 4th at 11 a.m. and tickets are still available online or at the door. If you want to learn more about SOFA, go here, and if you want to learn more about the Intuit part of the show, head over here. And if you're generally interested in learning about some new artists, you may want to check out Intuit's usual grounds over yonder.
The West Town art gallery and education center Intuit is also involved. They’re offering lecture series presentations and special exhibits, with lectures led by both emerging artists and academics. Topics range from explorations of artistic materials like glass, ceramics and wood to a discussion of artistic aspects of drinking vessels and customs.
SOFA will be showcasing more than 60 international art galleries and the Intuit Show of Folk & Outsider Art will feature 16 exhibitors.
SOFA’s focus is on sculptural and functional art whereas Intuit, according to their website, is the only nonprofit organization in the country dedicated to self-taught and outsider art. Intuit Board President Ralph Concepcion said the collaboration between the two groups works because the art the Intuit dealers sell complements the art at SOFA so well.
Concepcion said Intuit was initially planning to launch an outsider and folk art show on their own, but after consulting with Mark Wynam, owner of The Art Fair Company, they agreed that Wynam would produce the show as a separate but connected part of SOFA. “In the long run, it turned out to be a good fit with SOFA,” Concepcion said.
Earlier art shows had experienced some built-in conflict between the established high end art dealers and the dealers of self-taught art, who didn’t want to marginalize the work they carry, according to Concepcion. After the move to SOFA, “there wasn’t that same conflict,” Concepcion added. “We’re able to bring in galleries from all over the country and show the local audience here a wider variety of presentations of self-taught art.”
Donna Davies, director of SOFA, said, “We hope that there’s something for everybody.” She called SOFA a “venue to learn and make new discoveries” and pointed out that even if visitors are unable to make a purchase, they can still stop in at the lecture series and learn more about new forms of art.
This is the second year the two organizations have collaborated on the annual fair. Calling the outcome of the first year “tremendous,” Davies said, “The collectors were overjoyed to see some artists and forms that they hadn’t learned about.” She went on to call it “a wonderful partnership.” Concepcion echoed that sentiment, saying dealers “did well and the show looked good.”
The fair starts Friday, November 4th at 11 a.m. and tickets are still available online or at the door. If you want to learn more about SOFA, go here, and if you want to learn more about the Intuit part of the show, head over here. And if you're generally interested in learning about some new artists, you may want to check out Intuit's usual grounds over yonder.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
The one, the only, Garfunkel and Oates
Recently I had the great good fortune to interview Riki Lindhome and Kate Micucci, the ladies behind Garfunkel and Oates, when they came to Chicago to play a few shows at the Mayne Stage in Rogers Park. I would highly recommend checking them out, if you haven't already. In concert, they're witty and profane, in person they're witty and beyond kind to student journalists.
The duo started posting videos to Youtube in 2009, but didn't start playing concerts out together until about six months after the videos were posted. Their song "F*ck you" appeared on Scrubs prior to them playing out as well, though with a sanitized name. Lindhome said she voted for "Nail you", but the producers ultimately went with the apparently less offensive "Screw you".
They're working on a show for HBO ("Glee with dick jokes," as Lindhome describes it) and their album, "All Over Your Face", is available on iTunes (and Amazon, which is easier to link to). Trivia I learned at their concert: that really odd picture they used for their album cover was picked because it was so unattractive. The photographer was taking pictures of them jumping and somehow snapped that one of them right after they landed, leading to the frowny faces and hunched over posture. How could they pick any other photo?
Below is an audio piece I created from the interview. Enjoy at your leisure. If G&O comes to a city near you, go see them. They're hilarious and it's sweet to see performers with such evident affection for each other.
The duo started posting videos to Youtube in 2009, but didn't start playing concerts out together until about six months after the videos were posted. Their song "F*ck you" appeared on Scrubs prior to them playing out as well, though with a sanitized name. Lindhome said she voted for "Nail you", but the producers ultimately went with the apparently less offensive "Screw you".
They're working on a show for HBO ("Glee with dick jokes," as Lindhome describes it) and their album, "All Over Your Face", is available on iTunes (and Amazon, which is easier to link to). Trivia I learned at their concert: that really odd picture they used for their album cover was picked because it was so unattractive. The photographer was taking pictures of them jumping and somehow snapped that one of them right after they landed, leading to the frowny faces and hunched over posture. How could they pick any other photo?
Below is an audio piece I created from the interview. Enjoy at your leisure. If G&O comes to a city near you, go see them. They're hilarious and it's sweet to see performers with such evident affection for each other.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Book Review: The Magician King
I believe I decided to read The Magicians by Lev Grossman when I saw it described as Harry Potter for adults. Call me a sucker, but that's enough to reel me in. What I discovered was a book that was more like Harry Potter meets The Corrections. I enjoyed The Corrections, but I think I might have disliked it in equal measure. That was about my take on The Magicians as well. There were parts that were exciting and scary and clever, but it was not always fun to keep company with Lev Grossman's main character, Quentin Coldwater. Quentin is immature and selfish, prone to terrible life-decisions, but with the self-awareness to recognize how terrible those decisions are later. It's all the more frustrating that he then continues to make terrible decisions.
Grossman is not the first person to write about an unlikeable main character. Literature is filled with unsavory types who are nonetheless so compelling that you can't tear yourself away. Quentin occupies some middle ground. He's far from heroic, but, and this is damning with faint praise, he's not the worst person in the world either. I couldn't quite decide if this made him more realistic or just aggravating.
I must have come down on the side of compelling, because I found I was excited when I learned that the sequel, The Magician King, was coming out. I picked it up the day it came out and went to a reading by Lev Grossman later in the week. My capsule review of that is that Lev Grossman is clever and funny and only sometimes a little pretentious. The question and answer session was interesting. One person asked why the magicians in Grossman's books aren't doing anything more noble with their time, to which he answered that there are magicians who are noble in his world, but they're not the ones he's writing about. The question that I found most interesting in retrospect was the one with the simplest answer. A girl asked how long it had taken him to write the book and he said two years. It took him five years to write the first one. Having finished the book, I think this shortened writing period shows.
Without giving too much away, the book is split between Quentin's story and the story of his high school crush Julia, who had the chance to get into his fancy magician college in the first book, but was rejected. I don't want to sound hopelessly plot-driven as a reader, but I felt like I was halfway through the book and nothing had happened yet. Both of their stories are interesting, but a little underdeveloped. Years of Julia's story are skimmed through and Quentin's quest is resolved so quickly that I found the eventual stakes of it less meaningful and occasionally confusing. The climax of the book, when it comes, is underwhelming, and the grand denouement of Julia's section (which takes place at an earlier time) is noticeably similar to the big fight at the end of The Magicians.
There's also the fact that by the end of The Magicians, I thought Quentin had finally grown up a bit. By trial and error and having his heart broken, he's no longer solely a hedonist. However, at the beginning of The Magician King, he seems remarkably similar. I suppose we could say he regressed, but to me it came across as some retrofitting.
Pluses? Grossman is a good writer and it's generally worth following him through to the end. He has a firm sense of the ridiculous and when characters question the world around them, anyone who's read a fantasy book will feel the pangs once again of wondering why in the world Susan doesn't get to go to Narnia. For a book with awfully sad sections, it's often quite funny and Grossman is nothing if not inventive when creating the various magical spells and worlds.
My final take is that if you liked The Magicians, you'll like The Magician King. You'll see some old friends and meet some new ones. You'll want to strangle Quentin, but you'll stick by him. And if you're me, you will probably begrudgingly pick up the planned third book at some future date.
One last note: I've seen mostly positive reviews for this book, so I'm curious to see what other people think of it. If you're a fan of the first, are you a fan of the second? If you were frustrated by the first one, did you find this one to be an improvement? If you haven't read either one, this review has probably left you wondering whether or not these books are worth reading. Go for it! Take risks in life. Eat ice cream for dinner once, just because you can, and read books that provoke discussion.
Grossman is not the first person to write about an unlikeable main character. Literature is filled with unsavory types who are nonetheless so compelling that you can't tear yourself away. Quentin occupies some middle ground. He's far from heroic, but, and this is damning with faint praise, he's not the worst person in the world either. I couldn't quite decide if this made him more realistic or just aggravating.
I must have come down on the side of compelling, because I found I was excited when I learned that the sequel, The Magician King, was coming out. I picked it up the day it came out and went to a reading by Lev Grossman later in the week. My capsule review of that is that Lev Grossman is clever and funny and only sometimes a little pretentious. The question and answer session was interesting. One person asked why the magicians in Grossman's books aren't doing anything more noble with their time, to which he answered that there are magicians who are noble in his world, but they're not the ones he's writing about. The question that I found most interesting in retrospect was the one with the simplest answer. A girl asked how long it had taken him to write the book and he said two years. It took him five years to write the first one. Having finished the book, I think this shortened writing period shows.
Without giving too much away, the book is split between Quentin's story and the story of his high school crush Julia, who had the chance to get into his fancy magician college in the first book, but was rejected. I don't want to sound hopelessly plot-driven as a reader, but I felt like I was halfway through the book and nothing had happened yet. Both of their stories are interesting, but a little underdeveloped. Years of Julia's story are skimmed through and Quentin's quest is resolved so quickly that I found the eventual stakes of it less meaningful and occasionally confusing. The climax of the book, when it comes, is underwhelming, and the grand denouement of Julia's section (which takes place at an earlier time) is noticeably similar to the big fight at the end of The Magicians.
There's also the fact that by the end of The Magicians, I thought Quentin had finally grown up a bit. By trial and error and having his heart broken, he's no longer solely a hedonist. However, at the beginning of The Magician King, he seems remarkably similar. I suppose we could say he regressed, but to me it came across as some retrofitting.
Pluses? Grossman is a good writer and it's generally worth following him through to the end. He has a firm sense of the ridiculous and when characters question the world around them, anyone who's read a fantasy book will feel the pangs once again of wondering why in the world Susan doesn't get to go to Narnia. For a book with awfully sad sections, it's often quite funny and Grossman is nothing if not inventive when creating the various magical spells and worlds.
My final take is that if you liked The Magicians, you'll like The Magician King. You'll see some old friends and meet some new ones. You'll want to strangle Quentin, but you'll stick by him. And if you're me, you will probably begrudgingly pick up the planned third book at some future date.
One last note: I've seen mostly positive reviews for this book, so I'm curious to see what other people think of it. If you're a fan of the first, are you a fan of the second? If you were frustrated by the first one, did you find this one to be an improvement? If you haven't read either one, this review has probably left you wondering whether or not these books are worth reading. Go for it! Take risks in life. Eat ice cream for dinner once, just because you can, and read books that provoke discussion.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Movie Review: Pirates of the Caribbean the Fourth: On Stranger Tides
Ah, June. The trees, they are leafy, the flowers, they are blooming, the weather, she is making it too warm to sleep at night. And in the mercifully air conditioned movie theaters, it's explosion time. Starting this weekend, you can watch the X-Men blow things up again (or as a friend called it, X-Men: Hotter Than Before and With Accents) and soon to come, the return of Battlebots. Sorry, I mean Transformers. I like summer blockbusters. Some of them are big awful failures, but there's something enjoyable about seeing a movie make use of all those special effects. The part that starts to get to me is the oversequelization of everything. You know, the notion that if a movie made more money than expected, the saga should be continued, even though ostensibly everything is wrapped up at the end, which I assume is the case of The Hangover. I skipped that one when it came out, but I've been able to glean enough clues to safely conclude that it didn't end with Bradley Cooper getting encased in carbonite, Ed Helms losing a hand, and Zach Galifianikis sensing he needed to come to the rescue. Now, there was a movie where you knew a sequel was coming.
All of this is leading, in my usual roundabout way, to me saying that I'm not sure what to make of this latest pirate installment. The first one was unexpected fun, especially considering it came from one of the more cynical bases for a movie I'd heard of at the time: a theme park ride. Of course, that was before the big screen adaptation of Battleship was announced. The sequels had diminishing returns, sacrificing a coherent story for continuing box office paydays and undoing the happy ending of the first movie. When asked to recall the other night what had happened in the third one, I had a lot of trouble piecing it together. Bill Nighy was there, scowling, and there was a kraken, or something? This new one has sacrificed all of that dead weight in favor of focusing exclusively on Johnny Depp's eyeliner pirate.
I'm not sure that was such a good idea. While I'm not particularly enamored with Orlando Bloom's acting chops, he and Keira Knightley provided for a good percentage of the dramatic momentum in the original movies. Most of the time, the two of them were just trying to be together, which, when it comes down to it, is a sweet, simple plot. Jack Sparrow, on the other hand, doesn't have a lot of motivation, beyond a deep affection for rum, a fine hat, and his ship. He seems like a good guy, since he does help the young lovers out, but he doesn't want anything besides the freedom to sail around.
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, to use a sailing term, is adrift. It has no wind in its sails. Jack is the only lead now and the basic plot revolves around a search for the Fountain of Youth, but does Jack want it? Yes, kind of. But nowhere near as much as some of the other people in the movie, like Blackbeard or Penelope Cruz or some Spanish guys who are in the movie for no purpose I was able to discern. Jack gets shanghaied, more or less, into helping. He's Captain Jack Sparrow and there is a scene in this movie where he mops a floor. Mops. A. Floor. If you're only going to take one thing from the originals, at least do it right. Well, two things. Geoffrey Rush showed up to collect his paycheck. He's been given a peg leg and slightly clearer motivations than Jack. They have a lot to do with Blackbeard, here portrayed by Ian McShane. Blackbeard is evil, mostly, with occasional nicer moments happening around his apparent daughter, Penelope Cruz. He's heard he's going to die, so he's after the Fountain of Youth, and Penelope, well, she wants to help him because she thinks if he survives, she'll get the father she always wanted. Wait, there's a good plot! Daughter trying to save irredeemable father, even though he probably won't change even if he does survive.
But there's also the Spanish dude (really, I don't think he had a name) chasing down the Fountain, because two sailors find a half drowned old man who claims to have been sailing with Ponce de Leon, who as we all know died two hundred years before the setting of the movie, and OMG, how old can the half drowned old man be?? and then you never see the old man again. That doesn't even cover the missionary and the mermaid, which sounds like a joke, but isn't.
There are a lot of people in this movie.
Some of the action sequences are fun. There's nothing inherently wrong with a lot of characters, other than the issue that constantly jumping characters can leave you with not enough time to fully develop any of them. But these movies need to either give Jack Sparrow some definite, movie-guiding motivations or else have other leads. There are worse ways to spend time than in the company of Johnny Depp and that's ultimately what this movie is: spend two hours with Johnny Depp doing his cute pirate thing, see some explosions, and call it a night. Give him a better why and you manage that most delectable of summer blockbusters; namely, the kind that compels you to keep watching for reasons other than the next big explosion.
All of this is leading, in my usual roundabout way, to me saying that I'm not sure what to make of this latest pirate installment. The first one was unexpected fun, especially considering it came from one of the more cynical bases for a movie I'd heard of at the time: a theme park ride. Of course, that was before the big screen adaptation of Battleship was announced. The sequels had diminishing returns, sacrificing a coherent story for continuing box office paydays and undoing the happy ending of the first movie. When asked to recall the other night what had happened in the third one, I had a lot of trouble piecing it together. Bill Nighy was there, scowling, and there was a kraken, or something? This new one has sacrificed all of that dead weight in favor of focusing exclusively on Johnny Depp's eyeliner pirate.
I'm not sure that was such a good idea. While I'm not particularly enamored with Orlando Bloom's acting chops, he and Keira Knightley provided for a good percentage of the dramatic momentum in the original movies. Most of the time, the two of them were just trying to be together, which, when it comes down to it, is a sweet, simple plot. Jack Sparrow, on the other hand, doesn't have a lot of motivation, beyond a deep affection for rum, a fine hat, and his ship. He seems like a good guy, since he does help the young lovers out, but he doesn't want anything besides the freedom to sail around.
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, to use a sailing term, is adrift. It has no wind in its sails. Jack is the only lead now and the basic plot revolves around a search for the Fountain of Youth, but does Jack want it? Yes, kind of. But nowhere near as much as some of the other people in the movie, like Blackbeard or Penelope Cruz or some Spanish guys who are in the movie for no purpose I was able to discern. Jack gets shanghaied, more or less, into helping. He's Captain Jack Sparrow and there is a scene in this movie where he mops a floor. Mops. A. Floor. If you're only going to take one thing from the originals, at least do it right. Well, two things. Geoffrey Rush showed up to collect his paycheck. He's been given a peg leg and slightly clearer motivations than Jack. They have a lot to do with Blackbeard, here portrayed by Ian McShane. Blackbeard is evil, mostly, with occasional nicer moments happening around his apparent daughter, Penelope Cruz. He's heard he's going to die, so he's after the Fountain of Youth, and Penelope, well, she wants to help him because she thinks if he survives, she'll get the father she always wanted. Wait, there's a good plot! Daughter trying to save irredeemable father, even though he probably won't change even if he does survive.
But there's also the Spanish dude (really, I don't think he had a name) chasing down the Fountain, because two sailors find a half drowned old man who claims to have been sailing with Ponce de Leon, who as we all know died two hundred years before the setting of the movie, and OMG, how old can the half drowned old man be?? and then you never see the old man again. That doesn't even cover the missionary and the mermaid, which sounds like a joke, but isn't.
There are a lot of people in this movie.
Some of the action sequences are fun. There's nothing inherently wrong with a lot of characters, other than the issue that constantly jumping characters can leave you with not enough time to fully develop any of them. But these movies need to either give Jack Sparrow some definite, movie-guiding motivations or else have other leads. There are worse ways to spend time than in the company of Johnny Depp and that's ultimately what this movie is: spend two hours with Johnny Depp doing his cute pirate thing, see some explosions, and call it a night. Give him a better why and you manage that most delectable of summer blockbusters; namely, the kind that compels you to keep watching for reasons other than the next big explosion.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Race and the Hunger Games
Like many adult nerds who should probably be doing something better with their time, I've been following the casting news for the film adaptation of The Hunger Games. On the plus side, they've cast two really talented young actors and also that dude who dated Miley Cyrus. On the minus side, they took what could have been a minority lead in one of the biggest upcoming films and cast a white, blond actress. It's hard to argue too much with this casting; from what I've heard about Winter's Bone, Jennifer Lawrence has basically already played Katniss Everdeen, the main character in the books. She's been nominated for an Academy Award. In the realm of adaptations of children's books, she's a real catch. On the other hand, how many major motion pictures have people of color as main characters?
In the first book of the series, Katniss and Gale, her studly longtime friend, are described as having "straight black hair", "olive skin", and "gray eyes." In an otherwise softball interview that features questions like "How invigorating has this been for you Suzanne after several years of writing alone" (so invigorating, obviously), Entertainment Weekly did raise the issue of the race of the main character to the author, Suzanne Collins. Collins says, "They were not particularly intended to be biracial. It is a time period where hundreds of years have passed from now. There’s been a lot of ethnic mixing." So, we'll say "mixed race" rather than specifically biracial, as the interviewer put it. Collins goes on to say "I think I describe them as having dark hair, grey eyes, and sort of olive skin." Did we need the qualifier there? Instead of olive skin, they have "sort of" olive skin. Not to worry, though, because "You know, we have hair and makeup."
Can we all agree that using "hair and makeup" to make white actors less white is a bad idea? Of course, I can't pretend to know these characters as well as Collins does. They're her creation and as such, if she says they're white, then they are. I also understand that it's not exactly to anyone's benefit at this point for Collins to say that she disapproves of the casting. However, I do think her response in the interview came across as her backing off of her own description of these characters. I also don't think it's too surprising that a lot of people read the characters as being people of color.
In the weeks leading up the casting announcement, virtually every actress between the ages of 14 and 25 was suggested. Not a single one (that I saw in my very extensive research, obviously) was not white. Are there really no young actresses of color in Hollywood who could have been considered for the part? Bella Swan is white. Harry Potter is white. Percy Jackson is white. Katniss Everdeen is the only one who could easily have been cast differently.
As my esteemed friend Andrew pointed out, the term "olive skin" is often used to describe someone most of us would call Caucasian. It can mean Greek or Spanish. It can also mean Middle Eastern or South American. What rankles me is the opportunity lost more than anything else. How great would it have been for a young woman of color to portray someone this heroic? I don't think it's terribly controversial to say that we could do with some positive representations of people of color in these times of "anchor babies" and people claiming the president is a practicing Muslim.
In the first book of the series, Katniss and Gale, her studly longtime friend, are described as having "straight black hair", "olive skin", and "gray eyes." In an otherwise softball interview that features questions like "How invigorating has this been for you Suzanne after several years of writing alone" (so invigorating, obviously), Entertainment Weekly did raise the issue of the race of the main character to the author, Suzanne Collins. Collins says, "They were not particularly intended to be biracial. It is a time period where hundreds of years have passed from now. There’s been a lot of ethnic mixing." So, we'll say "mixed race" rather than specifically biracial, as the interviewer put it. Collins goes on to say "I think I describe them as having dark hair, grey eyes, and sort of olive skin." Did we need the qualifier there? Instead of olive skin, they have "sort of" olive skin. Not to worry, though, because "You know, we have hair and makeup."
Can we all agree that using "hair and makeup" to make white actors less white is a bad idea? Of course, I can't pretend to know these characters as well as Collins does. They're her creation and as such, if she says they're white, then they are. I also understand that it's not exactly to anyone's benefit at this point for Collins to say that she disapproves of the casting. However, I do think her response in the interview came across as her backing off of her own description of these characters. I also don't think it's too surprising that a lot of people read the characters as being people of color.
In the weeks leading up the casting announcement, virtually every actress between the ages of 14 and 25 was suggested. Not a single one (that I saw in my very extensive research, obviously) was not white. Are there really no young actresses of color in Hollywood who could have been considered for the part? Bella Swan is white. Harry Potter is white. Percy Jackson is white. Katniss Everdeen is the only one who could easily have been cast differently.
As my esteemed friend Andrew pointed out, the term "olive skin" is often used to describe someone most of us would call Caucasian. It can mean Greek or Spanish. It can also mean Middle Eastern or South American. What rankles me is the opportunity lost more than anything else. How great would it have been for a young woman of color to portray someone this heroic? I don't think it's terribly controversial to say that we could do with some positive representations of people of color in these times of "anchor babies" and people claiming the president is a practicing Muslim.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Ah, l'amour
Recently, I saw two movies about love. Since both of these movies took place in the present day (mostly), I decided to assume that both of them were trying to be realistic in their portrayal of young people falling in love. Both showed two attractive young people meeting and then what happened to them years later. Only one of them featured a virtually unrecognizable Dread Pirate Roberts, but we can't have everything. These two movies were Blue Valentine and No Strings Attached. One is a critically acclaimed drama about two people at the beginning and end of their relationship. The other is a saucy romantic comedy about friends with benefits who just might be developing feelings for each other. What do they have to say about love in these modern times? Can we reach a consensus?
How does time flow? In one of those linear fashions or some kinda crazy hopscotching business?
BV: Hopscotching business. The movie jumps back and forth between the two leads falling in love and falling apart years later.
NSA: Linear, but beginning when the leads are teenagers before jumping forward a few times, for no particular dramatic purpose.
Do the young people have family issues?
BV: Yes. Ryan Gosling has an absentee mother, Michelle Williams has a father who screams at her mother. Also, her mother suffers a terrible case of evaporating in the block of time between the early scenes and the later ones.
NSA: Yes. Natalie Portman's father dies early on. Ashton Kutcher's father is a lecherous faded TV actor dating his son's ex.
Is there a doctor in the house?
BV: Michelle Williams wants to be a doctor, but becomes a nurse after having a child ruins her life.
NSA: Natalie Portman is apparently in the Grey's Anatomy stage of becoming a doctor.
Sorry, I meant, is there a handsome doctor in the house?
BV: Ben Shenkman is on hand to tempt away the little lady.
NSA: This guy. Also, Cary Elwes, no matter how old or bearded he gets. Natalie Portman knows what I'm talking about.
Does anyone throw a punch?
BV: Ryan Gosling, at Ben Shenkman.
NSA: Ashton Kutcher, at his own father. This was nearly as disturbing.
Do they get by with a little help from their friends?
BV: No. These two have zero friends. Maybe everyone else finds them as unpleasant as they find each other.
NSA: Yes. Natalie has two ladyfriends, played by the notably more interesting Greta Gerwig and Mindy Kaling, as well as a gay friend. Ashton has two gentlemen friends, horny sarcastic dude and horny emotional dude.
How's the Oscar pedigree look?
BV: Both stars have been nominated, though Ryan was nominated for Half Nelson, not this one. Sorry, Ryan.
NSA: Natalie Portman and Kevin Kline both know their way around an Oscars ceremony.
General economic outlook?
BV: Lower-middle class. Living in a trailer.
NSA: Upper-middle class, but everybody has roommates.
Get to the good part. How's the sex?
BV: Bad.
NSA: Good.
What's the tagline?
BV: "A love story" (I think this is one of those ironic things)
NSA: "Friendship has its benefits", which is an important message for the lonely malcontents in Blue Valentine
I know these two movies don't really jump to mind as comparable ones, but I do think it was interesting to note what they did have in common, whether that was highly-respected actors or the fact that taglines are always a little painful. What does it say that two movies with vastly different aims both feature women as high-achieving professionals and men as charming underachievers? They also both had something to say about the choices and consequences young people face about sex and how worthwhile it is to stick with someone or make a go of it on your own. One of them might be saying it slightly more painfully than the other, but it is an aspect of romance on which both focus. Also, there seems to be something irresistible about what happens when people first meet.
I don't really want to recommend one over the other, since there's probably a time and a place for each. But I did gather some romantic advice after seeing both: Be rich, have friends, make a good first impression, and don't get married if you don't know each other that well.
How does time flow? In one of those linear fashions or some kinda crazy hopscotching business?
BV: Hopscotching business. The movie jumps back and forth between the two leads falling in love and falling apart years later.
NSA: Linear, but beginning when the leads are teenagers before jumping forward a few times, for no particular dramatic purpose.
Do the young people have family issues?
BV: Yes. Ryan Gosling has an absentee mother, Michelle Williams has a father who screams at her mother. Also, her mother suffers a terrible case of evaporating in the block of time between the early scenes and the later ones.
NSA: Yes. Natalie Portman's father dies early on. Ashton Kutcher's father is a lecherous faded TV actor dating his son's ex.
Is there a doctor in the house?
BV: Michelle Williams wants to be a doctor, but becomes a nurse after having a child ruins her life.
NSA: Natalie Portman is apparently in the Grey's Anatomy stage of becoming a doctor.
Sorry, I meant, is there a handsome doctor in the house?
BV: Ben Shenkman is on hand to tempt away the little lady.
NSA: This guy. Also, Cary Elwes, no matter how old or bearded he gets. Natalie Portman knows what I'm talking about.
Does anyone throw a punch?
BV: Ryan Gosling, at Ben Shenkman.
NSA: Ashton Kutcher, at his own father. This was nearly as disturbing.
Do they get by with a little help from their friends?
BV: No. These two have zero friends. Maybe everyone else finds them as unpleasant as they find each other.
NSA: Yes. Natalie has two ladyfriends, played by the notably more interesting Greta Gerwig and Mindy Kaling, as well as a gay friend. Ashton has two gentlemen friends, horny sarcastic dude and horny emotional dude.
How's the Oscar pedigree look?
BV: Both stars have been nominated, though Ryan was nominated for Half Nelson, not this one. Sorry, Ryan.
NSA: Natalie Portman and Kevin Kline both know their way around an Oscars ceremony.
General economic outlook?
BV: Lower-middle class. Living in a trailer.
NSA: Upper-middle class, but everybody has roommates.
Get to the good part. How's the sex?
BV: Bad.
NSA: Good.
What's the tagline?
BV: "A love story" (I think this is one of those ironic things)
NSA: "Friendship has its benefits", which is an important message for the lonely malcontents in Blue Valentine
I know these two movies don't really jump to mind as comparable ones, but I do think it was interesting to note what they did have in common, whether that was highly-respected actors or the fact that taglines are always a little painful. What does it say that two movies with vastly different aims both feature women as high-achieving professionals and men as charming underachievers? They also both had something to say about the choices and consequences young people face about sex and how worthwhile it is to stick with someone or make a go of it on your own. One of them might be saying it slightly more painfully than the other, but it is an aspect of romance on which both focus. Also, there seems to be something irresistible about what happens when people first meet.
I don't really want to recommend one over the other, since there's probably a time and a place for each. But I did gather some romantic advice after seeing both: Be rich, have friends, make a good first impression, and don't get married if you don't know each other that well.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
TV Review: Being Human
There's this weird thing that happens in the entertainment industry. One country makes a thing, the thing is super popular, and then a different country makes their own version that is simply horrendous. For instance, the movie Mostly Martha is this sweet, slightly cheesy German movie about an uptight chef. A few years later, Catherine Zeta-Jones ruined it in English with No Reservations. Please, don't rent No Reservations. You're only feeding the beast.
Sometimes these adaptations work. Unfortunately, for every Office, there's a Coupling or Viva Laughlin. The latest entry into this pantheon of hits and embarrassing misses is Being Human, currently running on the Syfy channel. I would call this one more miss than hit, at the moment. It is a show about a vampire, a werewolf, and a ghost who are roommates. To me, this sounds like the set up to a joke, but most of the characters are incapable of pushing their faces into smile shapes, so it's more of a drama.
Aside from their general humorlessness, they're also whiny and not terribly interesting. Aidan, the requisite hot brooding vampire guy, is two hundred years old. He used to be really violent and murderous, but now he's not, except for when he relapses once an episode. He has this one vampire friend who is kind of threatening. Then there's Josh, the whiny werewolf. I keep thinking Josh will be the funny one, but he isn't. He mostly sulks, because he's not old enough to brood. Finally, we have Sally the ghost. Hey, what's that over there? Oh, it's another feminist rant.
OK, you have three main characters, so two of the three have to be men instead of the other way around (of course), but the one female character is also a ghost? The only one with no power to do anything at all? The one who can't interact with any characters except the two main dudes because they're the only ones who can see her? The one whose ultimate fate rests on her ability to find emotional closure about her life? At least make some effort here. I know the cast is based on the British version, but that doesn't mean it was OK when they did it.
Moving on to other issues, the show is supposed to be set in Boston, but the producers apparently didn't even spring for a few skyline shots to toss between scenes. The only indication that they're in Boston is that one, someone casually referred to them being in Boston, and two, Josh was supposed to be attending MIT Med School before he got bitten by a werewolf and dropped out. I can't even tell where in Boston they're supposed to be living. I'm guessing they're in South Boston, but I'm not sure. Didn't Good Will Hunting teach us all the phrase "Southie"? Also, Josh goes off into "the woods" once a month to turn into a werewolf. Where is he going? What woods? Why isn't anyone taking the T anywhere?
I'm not expecting ol' Josh to be all, "Head down Boylston, take a right on Arlington, a left on Newbury, and it's by the Urban Outfitters across from Hynes." But if you're going to go to the trouble of setting your show in a specific town and more than that, a large famous town, let the city give your show a little added flavor. This show needs it. So far, plot lines focus on how miserable everyone is. There needs to be something else going on or else they need to make me care about these people more. I mean, a show about poor whiny 20-somethings in Boston with a supernatural element is totally my cup of tea. I probably won't give up on it yet, partially because it's already set up as a series recording on my DVR. I suggest a second emotion for each character, as well as one of those famed "ongoing plot lines" to tie the episodes together.
Final verdict? Skip it, unless you refuse to let anything vampire-related pass you by or you can think of some other reason to watch it.
Sometimes these adaptations work. Unfortunately, for every Office, there's a Coupling or Viva Laughlin. The latest entry into this pantheon of hits and embarrassing misses is Being Human, currently running on the Syfy channel. I would call this one more miss than hit, at the moment. It is a show about a vampire, a werewolf, and a ghost who are roommates. To me, this sounds like the set up to a joke, but most of the characters are incapable of pushing their faces into smile shapes, so it's more of a drama.
Aside from their general humorlessness, they're also whiny and not terribly interesting. Aidan, the requisite hot brooding vampire guy, is two hundred years old. He used to be really violent and murderous, but now he's not, except for when he relapses once an episode. He has this one vampire friend who is kind of threatening. Then there's Josh, the whiny werewolf. I keep thinking Josh will be the funny one, but he isn't. He mostly sulks, because he's not old enough to brood. Finally, we have Sally the ghost. Hey, what's that over there? Oh, it's another feminist rant.
OK, you have three main characters, so two of the three have to be men instead of the other way around (of course), but the one female character is also a ghost? The only one with no power to do anything at all? The one who can't interact with any characters except the two main dudes because they're the only ones who can see her? The one whose ultimate fate rests on her ability to find emotional closure about her life? At least make some effort here. I know the cast is based on the British version, but that doesn't mean it was OK when they did it.
Moving on to other issues, the show is supposed to be set in Boston, but the producers apparently didn't even spring for a few skyline shots to toss between scenes. The only indication that they're in Boston is that one, someone casually referred to them being in Boston, and two, Josh was supposed to be attending MIT Med School before he got bitten by a werewolf and dropped out. I can't even tell where in Boston they're supposed to be living. I'm guessing they're in South Boston, but I'm not sure. Didn't Good Will Hunting teach us all the phrase "Southie"? Also, Josh goes off into "the woods" once a month to turn into a werewolf. Where is he going? What woods? Why isn't anyone taking the T anywhere?
I'm not expecting ol' Josh to be all, "Head down Boylston, take a right on Arlington, a left on Newbury, and it's by the Urban Outfitters across from Hynes." But if you're going to go to the trouble of setting your show in a specific town and more than that, a large famous town, let the city give your show a little added flavor. This show needs it. So far, plot lines focus on how miserable everyone is. There needs to be something else going on or else they need to make me care about these people more. I mean, a show about poor whiny 20-somethings in Boston with a supernatural element is totally my cup of tea. I probably won't give up on it yet, partially because it's already set up as a series recording on my DVR. I suggest a second emotion for each character, as well as one of those famed "ongoing plot lines" to tie the episodes together.
Final verdict? Skip it, unless you refuse to let anything vampire-related pass you by or you can think of some other reason to watch it.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Remember to eat your book vegetables
I recently read The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, by Rebecca Skloot. The short form review: it's really, really good and it's about race, poverty, ethics, and cancer research. You should probably pick it up. It's easy to find, since it has a bright orange cover with a very jaunty looking lady on it. It was a somewhat unusual read for me, though. Embarrassing but true: I don't read much non-fiction. I'm trying to get over this handicap. Unfortunately, I am the sort of person who has been known to take an inordinately long time to make it through David Sedaris and Sarah Vowell books, which are the training-wheels-on sort of nonfiction reading.
I know some people claim to only read nonfiction. We call these strange individuals "dads". For me, reading nonfiction books is always a struggle. There's something about the occasionally random way real people live their lives that makes it difficult for me to stick with them through it all. The character lists tend to be much longer. You have to remember a lot more details. Also, if you're me, you will have to struggle not to go look everyone up on wikipedia before you finish the book just to see if they're attractive or dead. Not to say that the two are mutually exclusive. I learned who Lewis Powell was from Assassination Vacation. Yes, yes, he conspired to assassinate a president, but just look at that smoldering gaze!
I hate admitting defeat on a book. I maintain that I am still "currently reading" A Confederacy of Dunces, even though I started it during the Bush administration. The secret is, you just have to force yourself to keep picking the book up and reading a few pages. Even if it's only a few pages a night, you'll finish by increments. It's like training for a marathon, except instead of hot runner body, you get hot...reader mind. This is how I eventually finished reading And The Band Played On, which is about the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. In case you are not familiar with it, here is where to read a bit about it on wikipedia. This book is approximately a million pages long. There is a cast of characters that is probably bigger than your Facebook friend list. It took me many small increments to get through it. It's also one of the most heartbreaking, rage-inspiring, wonderful, amazing things I've ever read. Having grown up in the years after we all knew to be terrified of AIDS, it's frustrating and scary to read about those first people who had it and didn't know what it was. If you're interested in gay rights, public health, government conspiracies, courage and cowardice or plain old human nature, you should read this book. Everyone should read this book.
In other words, this is the book that first convinced me that nonfiction can be just as compelling as fiction. I may not quite be up to the point of having a biography of General Patton on my nightstand, but I'm learning which nonfiction books make good parts of a balanced reading diet. If you're trying to start reading more nonfiction, I assure you, if I can do it, you can, too. Later, we can have a fancy discussion at a dinner party about the AIDS crisis and then have a slightly less fancy discussion about The Hunger Games, about which I am also quite knowledgeable. And if you're a nonfiction reader trying to get into fiction, I don't really understand you, but you are welcome at this fictional dinner party as well, and I have quite a few recommendations for you.
I know some people claim to only read nonfiction. We call these strange individuals "dads". For me, reading nonfiction books is always a struggle. There's something about the occasionally random way real people live their lives that makes it difficult for me to stick with them through it all. The character lists tend to be much longer. You have to remember a lot more details. Also, if you're me, you will have to struggle not to go look everyone up on wikipedia before you finish the book just to see if they're attractive or dead. Not to say that the two are mutually exclusive. I learned who Lewis Powell was from Assassination Vacation. Yes, yes, he conspired to assassinate a president, but just look at that smoldering gaze!
I hate admitting defeat on a book. I maintain that I am still "currently reading" A Confederacy of Dunces, even though I started it during the Bush administration. The secret is, you just have to force yourself to keep picking the book up and reading a few pages. Even if it's only a few pages a night, you'll finish by increments. It's like training for a marathon, except instead of hot runner body, you get hot...reader mind. This is how I eventually finished reading And The Band Played On, which is about the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. In case you are not familiar with it, here is where to read a bit about it on wikipedia. This book is approximately a million pages long. There is a cast of characters that is probably bigger than your Facebook friend list. It took me many small increments to get through it. It's also one of the most heartbreaking, rage-inspiring, wonderful, amazing things I've ever read. Having grown up in the years after we all knew to be terrified of AIDS, it's frustrating and scary to read about those first people who had it and didn't know what it was. If you're interested in gay rights, public health, government conspiracies, courage and cowardice or plain old human nature, you should read this book. Everyone should read this book.
In other words, this is the book that first convinced me that nonfiction can be just as compelling as fiction. I may not quite be up to the point of having a biography of General Patton on my nightstand, but I'm learning which nonfiction books make good parts of a balanced reading diet. If you're trying to start reading more nonfiction, I assure you, if I can do it, you can, too. Later, we can have a fancy discussion at a dinner party about the AIDS crisis and then have a slightly less fancy discussion about The Hunger Games, about which I am also quite knowledgeable. And if you're a nonfiction reader trying to get into fiction, I don't really understand you, but you are welcome at this fictional dinner party as well, and I have quite a few recommendations for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)