Everyone Thinks we’re Insane-O Home Journal

Authentic Characters Not Special Effects Makes Movies Special

2011-05-15T10:42:00.002-06:00

Dear Hollywood,

As an outsider, movie watcher, critic, fan, couch potato, scholar here is some advice. It is really simple. You should know this stuff. Character development is important. That is why reality shows are popular, they are about real people with stories that are on some level genuine. I love well-done science fiction and fantasy programming, because people and relationships become an essential piece of bringing the narratives “down to earth.”

Identifiable characters is the thing that emotionally invests me to movies. Without interesting characters, you are making soulless, self-indulgent crap (popular music has also lost its soul, but that is a topic for another day). I no longer wish to support lame, superficial and poorly marketed movies through my patronage. Maybe I’ll catch your new thing when it comes onto cable or Netflix. Or maybe I’ll watch 10 minutes of it, decide that it is not worth my time, and change the channel.

The only movies I want to see this summer are sequels. It is because I am already emotionally attached to the characters. In addition, your marketing tactics are not persuading me to invest in new stories and characters. Quality television programs are more interesting to me, since I care about the people and because of that, I care about the plot and situations presented to me. So let’s start focusing on that, not on blowing stuff up, and selling sex in a vulgar way. I’m no math whiz, but good acting and writing cost a lot less than CGI. Special effects and visuals have a place in movies, but it is the focus as the story is now secondary. Is it made to appeal to foreign markets or the shallow Americans looking for spectacle? I get that you have a bunch of new tools to use, but it doesn’t mean a thing without the right context, characters, or cohesive events.

Then we have movies nominated for academy awards, some are good others are dripping with pretention. Another trait of current movies I dislike is being preachy (trying to sell me a political or philosophical point of view). I also hate the recent crop of romantic comedies and the portrayal of desperate and co-dependant women, with a regressive view of relationships, although plastic attempts of feminism are made. In these movies characters are important, but if they are repulsive and annoying (without intention) or plastic stereotypes (without irony)it doesn't matter.

Sincerely,

Natalie

Blog CPR

2011-04-30T03:52:00.002-06:00

This blog is getting virtual CPR- as I breathe life to it once again. It might be more like defibrillation, as a shock it back into life. These medical metaphors are not the most original thing in the world, but I'm kind of rusty at this whole blogging thing.

10 Reasons Why a Buffy Movie Will Never Be as Good as the TV Series (with or without Joss)

2010-11-29T20:15:00.008-07:00

I enjoy aspects of the Buffyverse that will never be appropriately translated on the big screen, no matter who is creating, writing or directing it.In reality, movies are really just glorified three part episodes with a big special effects budget and expensive casting. Television as a medium can do so much more than a movie ever could, because of the serialized nature of TV. The entire Buffy world is more than just her killing vampires; it is much too complex to be a two hour movie.

There are spoilers ahead, for those who have not seen the entire series.

Here are 10 important things a “big damn movie” will miss.

Too Buffy Focused - The problem is that Buffy will be the center of the project. While I do enjoy her character, the ensemble nature of the show allows it to standout as a television masterpiece. The Buffy universe isn’t just about Buffy. Will she be the only major television character to be featured in the movie? Or will they could go down the Twilight road and include Angel? Anyway working in great and iconic characters like Anya, Spike, Tara, and Faith may be a bit problematic. And what about the whole Dawn thing, will she have a little sister in the movie? I can see how they can work Xander, Willow, Cordelia and Giles into it, but not much of the supporting cast.

Repeat Much? – I guess a movie would have to start as an origin story. Isn’t that what the original 1992 movie does? Will it be Welcome to the Hellmouth Redux? Will it go another direction? Do we need another origin story?

Evolution – The characters all have made major changes over time. Willow becomes a confident witch, comes out of the closet, and goes dark; this couldn’t be conveyed in a film version. How about Angel losing his soul, by having sex with Buffy? The Angel/Buffy thing couldn’t have a payoff in a two hour adaption. A movie Giles will be a stiff serious librarian guy, without any signs of Ripper or any type of complexity.

Relationships – I love how relationships grew throughout the series. Not only in romantic ways, but platonic friendships as well. A large part of the Buffy story is how she has family and friends to support her in her duties as slayer. The concept of a “chosen family” was a major theme of the series. This type of group dynamic could not be appropriately formed and solidified within a single movie.

Little Room for Experimentation – We couldn’t have a Hush, Restless, the Body, Once More with Feeling or anything that transcends the teen horror genre.

No Angel the Series – A big Buffy movie will miss the great things that happened in tandem with the Angel spinoff. The crossovers were interesting additions that expanded the world and yet both shows developed their own vibe. The character arcs that span both series, such as Angel, Cordelia, Wesley, Spike, and Faith will never get full coverage in a movie.

Intertexuality – One of my favorite things about Buffy is how it rewarded you for being a fan, by often referring to itself. Although it wasn’t perfectly done, Xander being caught in a lie 5 years later on Willow telling Buffy to “kick his (Angel) ass.” Or the way dreams depicted in episodes such as Restless plays on past and future events in meaningful ways. I also like the way that “crazy in the basement Spike” was visited with visions of all of the former season long villains in season 7. A movie could never make these type of things payoff.

No High School – The little bit I read about the reboot, said it wouldn’t take place in high school. The “high school as hell” metaphor made the first three seasons spectacular.

Big Bad? –The villains won’t be at the same level with the “Big Bads” that the series introduced. Dealing with them throughout the season brings more emotional investment than killing a nemesis in two hours.

New Cast- No matter how great the new cast is, they will always be compared to the people that played the same parts on television. No matter who is the Buffy, we will be disappointed, unless Sarah Michelle Gellar gets a time machine and plays the part herself.

Buffy Fan Faves - Top 30 Countdown

2010-06-13T22:13:00.004-06:00

For all of my Whedon-y friends: LOGO played the "Buffy Fan Faves - Top 30 Countdown. My TIVO recorded them all and as a geek, I complied the list. Some things were a surprise (no Restless) and others were expected (Once More With Feeling and Hush at the top). No episodes from Season 1 made the list. Season 5 has the most number of top episodes. We also have lots of Spike love!

1. Once More with Feeling
2. Hush
3. Something Blue
4. Fool for Love
5. Chosen
6. Lovers Walk
7. The Wish
8. Crush
9. Beneath You
10. The Gift
11. Intervention
12. Gone
13. The Body
14. The Initiative
15. Doppelgangland
16. Out of My Mind
17. Becoming Part II
18. Innocence
19. Touched
20. Tabula Rasa
21. Band Candy
22. Surprise
23. Halloween
24. Grave
25. The Yoko Factor
26. Bewitched Bothered and Bewildered
27. Graduation Day Part II
28. Who Are You?
29. The Prom
30. Buffy Vs. Dracula

Season 1 = 0
Season 2 = 5
Season 3 = 6
Season 4 = 5
Season 5 = 7
Season 6 = 4
Season 7 = 3

Any thoughts?

Lost for the Last Time

2010-05-24T17:31:00.006-06:00

The series finale of Lost was emotionally satisfying. That is if you believe that it is a character driven philosophical show. For those who read the show as a literal untangling a mystery may have missed the point, as punctuated by the finale.

The mysteries of the island, while intriguing, are just trials that test the faith of the characters. The island is a MacGuffin (A device that helps propel the plot in a story but is of little importance in it you get bonus points if you know the term was coined by Alfred Hitchcock.) It is like the Lord of the Rings Trilogy just being about an obsessive love of jewelry -it is more than that emotionally and spiritually. Or Citizen Kane, being just about an old sled, these MacGuffins are artifacts that helps tell a compelling story about interesting characters.

Saying this, the mysteries don't have to be answered and shouldn't be fully explained. I've experienced the show in a different way, than others, I see it as a as a journey. The fun of being a Lost fan is interpreting the episodes and with an easy answers, I would feel the fun is taken out since it is no longer up for interpretation. So here is the way I saw it on a macro level:

The people who crashed on flight 815 or arrived on the island otherwise were all suffering overwhelming sense of loneliness. Everyone was lacking connections in their lives, as viewed from season 1 through 3 flashbacks. They were all looking for something whether it is freedom, adventure, acceptance or closure; our characters were on a quest to transform their existence. The plane crash set the path, but enlightenment occurs through experience and faith on Lost as in real life.

Supernatural occurrences are used as a catalyst for the characters to test their belief system. The narrative uses allegory, to talk about faith as a construct and not as a particular religion. Religious icons and symbols are used in Lost (think of the stained glass window in last nights episode), but that doesn't tell the whole story. The plot allows faith to be discussed in a popular culture forum, without the constraints of pure dogma. This frees the writers to shows multiple journeys of faith, without pandering or blaspheming someones core beliefs.

During the run of Lost, I was in graduate school and was enrolled in an Interfaith Dialogue class. We studied world religions and discovered ways to discuss religion with people of other faiths. I thought that Lost is a perfect vehicle to discuss religion, since the show provides examples of different faiths and ideologies interacting in meaningful ways. Characters are shown to be Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, and undefined. The symbolism and iconography of the show also displayed a strong pluralistic point of view as there is not only one path of faith. In addition, concepts of faith are left so open ended, that it can foster intelligent discussion.

Now that Lost is over it is time to start discussing it as a complete statement. I'm planning a complete DVD re-watch. For me this process will be enlightening and I might see it with new eyes. Ive stayed offline, since I watched it, because I needed it to soak into my head a while before I heard what everyone else thought about it.

One final thought: “Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me. I once was LOST but now am found, was blind, but now I see.” Or in John Locke's case, “was crippled, but now I walk.” I guess that doesn't rhyme good enough to be catchy.

Dachshund Rule! Private Practice Drools!

2010-01-15T20:31:00.008-07:00

I have been losing interest in Grey's Anatomy for awhile now (see my March 19, 2009 blog post). I never got into Private Practice. I just watched the Grey's/Private Practice crossover because McSteamy looked really hot and naked in the commercials. His sexiness did not make up for how much I am over the Grey's/Private Practice universe.

Then the Taye Diggs character, Sam, says horrible things about my favorite dog breed and I'm offended. I shouldn't take stock of some stupid dialogue on some stupid show, but it was mean spirited, dumb, and untrue. Here is what was said:

"Dachshunds like to eat poop, right up off the street, other dogs poop. They're more concerned with their own needs than they are with making you happy, they're filthy and immoral. The owners of dachshunds are desperate, desperate for affection. But it's the wrong kind of affection, the kind that makes you always take care of them."

Now let's deconstruct it, using my little Dachshund Foxanne (Foxy) as an example.

My Dachshund Foxanne has never eaten poop. Not her own, not some random other dog poop on the street. She is disgusted by poop; she never goes near her bed or eating area. If she does go on a potty pad in the house, she covers it up, she doesn't want to look at it--let alone eat it.
My little Foxy is a people pleaser. She's a lover and looks for my approval. Sometimes she can be a little selfish and stubborn, but she's no worse than any other dog or person.
Foxy is a clean dog--not filthy. See above, about the poop.
How can a dog be immoral?
Then the bit on the dog owner. I do love the affection, but I'm not desperate for it. Foxanne is affectionate and she loves the attention. I love to give it to her. Isn't that part of all dog/human relationships? But, why are dachshunds called out, since these are characteristics of all dogs.
What dogs take care of humans? Some super alien breed that I'm not aware of? Since dogs need you to take care of them.

Dachshunds are great dogs. Don't believe everything you hear on TV.

Why I love Supernatural

2009-09-10T18:22:00.007-06:00

In honor of tonight’s premiere, here are the top 10 reasons to watch this show. I know there is lots of TV competition on Thursday night. Trust me; it is better to spend an hour watching Supernatural than Grey’s Anatomy or something. It is better for your mind, body and soul.

It isn’t about dating or fashion or superficial stuff. The main themes are family and good vs. evil.
Good and evil aren’t shown to be simple constructs. Navigating the grey area makes it additionally compelling. Many friends of mine didn’t like the depiction of Angels last season, but you know what---they were willing to do anything to rid the world of evil—isn’t that the kind of Angel’s we want?
Dean’s car has become iconic. It is a perfect vehicle for the quest they are on and not the latest bit of product placement from automobile manufacturers. The “Metallicar” is another character and really part of the narrative—not just a prop.
Sibling rivalry is portrayed as healthy and normal. Even though the brothers have disagreements/annoy each other there is still a whole lotta love (needed a Led Zeppelin reference here).
It makes it cool to like 70s-80s hard rock.
Supernatural takes urban legends and other postmodern fears and flips them into new and compelling stories.
Every film studies geek, knows that road movies are the best means of expression to show a journey as a transformative quest for self discovery. Mythology students can see Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey as Sam and Dean loosely follow that model as they fight against evil.
I love that they never added a third character to go on missions with them. I wouldn’t like someone riding in the backseat.
The story keeps evolving. The new season shows an epic battle with demonic evil and surely evil’s ass will be royally kicked.
The main characters are hot boys. Jensen and Jared are very good looking guys. They also have great on screen chemistry.

I'm turning a 2007/2008 paper I wrote on Supernatural into a future post. I’m taking out some of the academic stuff and stripping it down to its essential message, plus I’m added stuff about the newer seasons. Some of the paper’s ideas inspired the list above.

A Question of Values: The Media, Mayor Wilkins and Me

2009-09-01T18:51:00.006-06:00

Last week, I was reminded of the third season “big bad” story arc of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Buffy wants Sunnydale to be a good place to live. Mayor Wilkins wants Sunnydale to be a good place to live. Yet, different value systems and worldviews lead to most of the conflict. The way the season progresses, it is a narrative about an evil Mayor and a heroic Slayer. If the story was told from the Mayor’s point of view it would be an entirely different story.

The Mayor wants Sunnydale to be a clean and nice community. If you examine his public rhetoric and basic policy decisions (except for the part about worshiping demons, murdering enemies and questing to turn into a giant snake monster), you see a political figure who “keeps his campaign promises.” He also creates a loving father/daughter relationship with a young girl who is in need of guidance and unconditional affection and fancies himself as a “family man.” Buffy even can’t detect a “bad guy vibe off of him.”

Several episodes (Homecoming, Lovers Walk) show him trying to manage or mitigate some evil occurrences in the town, by monitoring some of the “colorful characters” that come into town. In the episode Gingerbread, he gives a speech to a community group after the bodies of two young children are found murdered. “Seeing you all here proves what a caring community Sunnydale is. Now, sure, we've had our share of misfortunes, but we're a good town with good people.” He also talks about Sunnydale as a great town in Enemies. In that same episode, Faith admits that the reason he built this town is for demons to feed,” but in the meantime it is clean and well organized. He may have warped priorities, but it may not seem so strange to someone with his belief system. The Mayor sees himself as a hero and Buffy as a villain, who doesn’t work in the best interest of Sunnydale.

Mayor Wilkins isn’t fond of Buffy and her group. She is the “little girl that's been causing me all this trouble.” When things escalate he calls her a “murderous little fiend” and a “whore.” But Buffy’s presence in Sunnydale makes it better, although she questions her mission in Gingerbread, the alternate reality without Buffy in The Wish proves that she is one reason Sunnydale is thriving.

Professionally, I’ve been dealing with a public controversy. I don’t want to go into details or make this post about that. Anyway, my organization is being portrayed in some of the media as villains. From my point of view we are doing the right thing, but others vehemently disagree. This made me question the concepts of heroes and villains and the people that tell their stories. Some who believe everything they read in the paper may view me as a Mayor Wilkins or one of his minions. I really am not the Mayor of this controversy, more like Deputy Mayor Allan Finch, Mr. Trick or better yet Faith. I think I am the Faith, doing the dirty work, yet without the new apartment, Playstation and fancy knife. Plus, I don’t get milk and cookies when I do a good job.

Of course we don’t worship evil things, kill people and want to turn into giant snake monsters. Without going into details, the heart of this controversy is a divergence in beliefs. We want one thing, they want another, but these positions are rooted in core values.

I deal with a lot of reporters. Some are excellent and deserve milk and cookies. Others have the story written, before they look at the facts or even speak to the parties involved. These articles are not true and unbiased journalism, but narratives to promote an ideological agenda. The heroes and villains of the story are already cast and the traditional archetypes are utilized to the ultimate extent to provide a particular result to sway public opinion in a certain direction.

Of course Buffy is a fictional story and it doesn’t have to be impartial. Whedon and his staff of talented writers write most plots from Buffy’s perspective. The series is called, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It is not, Faith the Vampire Slayer and Her Daddy Figure Mayor Wilkins. The show isn’t called, Sunnydale, in that scenario—the narrative might strive to be more balanced. It doesn’t claim to be unbiased, since it is a fantasy and not a real life report of events. The show and other Whedonvers stuff (Angel, Dr. Horrible’s Sing-a-Long Blog, Firefly) do give occasional nods to the complex gray area between hero and villain. On Buffy, is especially true in the Mayor Wilkins storyline. He is a polite germ phobic guy that enjoys the Family Circus comic strip and does photo ops with the Boy Scouts. He can’t be 100% evil.

I also saw clashing values in the news last week. The health care debate has clear sides and passionate rhetoric. All involved want Americans to have the best possible health care, but each see how to accomplish these goals very differently. This conflict boils down to life and death. This drives down to the core of emotions and basic value systems. I’m shocked that politicians and pundits are surprised that the public is so vocal and aggressive on this issue. It is as if they are fighting for survival, just like the people at the graduation/ascension when the Mayor accomplishes his goal and becomes a giant snake demon.

You can see conflicting values in every relationship. The communication theory, relational dialectics states that communication is produced by dialectical tensions (the negotiation of values). When conflicting values escalate, the rift is huge and the delineation between people can illuminate the discussion and make it epic through stories. The media plays this up for ratings and increased ad revenue.

Determining the point of view of a storyteller or journalist is important to understand the story. A narrator can be trustworthy or untrustworthy, involved or uninvolved. It is essential to recognize the standpoint of a writer before determining the truth in a story or article. Fantasies and fiction are biased and that is acceptable and encouraged. Documenting reality should be different. Although I understand that journalists do have opinions, they should strive to be objective.

The moral of my story is to be skeptical of stories; you never know who is telling it. They may want to ascend and become a giant snake monster. You never know.

Guilt, Redemption, and Sex: Buffy’s First Times

2009-06-22T21:48:00.003-06:00

The world of the Buffyverse is full of guilt and redemption. The character arcs of Angel, Spike and Faith are forwarded through the force of guilt and redemption. Buffy also has issues with guilt, but her feelings of shame are mostly focused on sexual issues. The narrative surrounding her carnal activities often depict her dealing with remorse afterwards. This isn’t necessarily focused on traditional or puritanical notions of sex, but out of these situations she becomes a better person and an empathetic hero who isn’t perfect.

Within Kenneth Burke’s Dramatism, the concept of the Guilt and Redemption Cycle was developed. Burke viewed the ultimate motivation of rhetoric is to purge feelings of guilt. According to Burke, redemption is gained through two forms of victimage, mortification and scapegoating. Mortification is the act of blaming oneself and scapegoating is blaming external forces for problems.

During the run of the series, Buffy has sex with four different men. When she has sex for the first time with three of these partners, guilt is brought out within her and she must find ways to alleviate herself of the guilt. Buffy uses both forms of victimage in all three situations to release her of her guilt, but she never becomes a victim in the traditional sense of the word.

Buffy’s sexual relationships with Angel, Parker and Spike bring on feelings of guilt. In all three instances, she faces sexual guilt for many different reasons. Buffy deals with her remorse through mortification and scapegoating in both physical and psychological ways. I will cover each of these relationships in future posts.

The Guilt and Redemption Cycle is a recurring theme regarding Buffy’s sex life. Through the progression of the story Buffy finds redemption and purges herself of guilt in each instance. Her resolution of guilt is not easy, redemption is eventually earned, and she comes out with strength and maturity. Sex and guilt have been linked throughout history and the metaphoric telling of the narrative doesn’t allow her sexual activity to devalue her as a woman and a hero. Buffy’s ability to rise above these emotions under extraordinary circumstances is admirable and in itself heroic. These experiences, at times, make Buffy seem weak, but the instances of sex and guilt are opportunities to show flaws as well as bravery in character, superpowers not withstanding.

Narrative Fidelity on Thursday Night Shows

2009-03-19T20:20:00.005-06:00

It is Thursday night, just the time for unrealistic romance! I watch Bones and Grey’s Anatomy. While I generally like these programs, one major element annoys the crap out of me. The relationships between Booth and Bones and Derrick and Meredith don’t ring true to me. Guys like that wouldn’t be crazy about those women.

On Bones, agent Seeley Booth (David Boreanaz) and forensic science expert Dr. Temperance “Bones” Brennan (Emily Deschanel) work together to solve murders. He is fun guy who wears funky socks and is a caring divorced dad to his son. Booth does have a serious side as an ex-military quintessential cop, who has a knack for reading people who get gets emotional about the cases and has empathy and sympathy for people. Bones is the exact opposite; she is cold and is more comfortable dealing with skeletal remains. She views sex, love and romance like it is only like it is a biological function.

There is a little playful piece of their interactions that are cute and there is sexual tension, although I find it lacks fidelity. People say that opposites attract, but seriously? It doesn’t work because their chemistry is forced. Watch season 5 of Angel and David Boreanaz has much hotter chemistry with James Marsters—maybe nothing seems good to me when I am use to Spike and Angel chemistry.

Grey’s Anatomy has been pushing the Derrick “McDreamy” Shepherd (Patrick Dempsey)/ Meredith Grey (Ellen Pompeo) thing since the first episode. There is that push/pull thing, but it has gotten old. They are educated doctors and they have the emotional maturity of toddlers, although that might be the point—that doctors are imperfect ego maniacs, but it is still obnoxious.

The couple is together they break up. They get together and his wife shows up. When they get close to marriage, he swings a golf club at the wedding ring. A guy like McDreamy wouldn’t put up with a self involved whiney bitch like Meredith, he could have any woman, but he can’t get enough of her and her morose attitude is rubbing off on him. Anyway McSteamy is much hotter, since he acts like a man and not a whipped little boy!

I haven’t watched the episodes tonight—I hope these relationships won’t bother me too much.

It’s About Power: Dollhouse Follows a Whedon Tradition

2009-03-18T21:46:00.002-06:00

The new series Dollhouse is off to a slow start. Many have complained that this really isn’t the Joss Whedon quality we are accustomed to. I wasn’t hot about the first episode, but with each week the show is getting progressively more interesting. Press reports and reviews are hinting that the March 20 (written by Whedon) and other near future episodes are awesome and shouldn’t be missed. If you weren’t watching the show before, now is the time to start.

The program’s protagonist is Echo, who works as and Active (also called a Doll). An Active is a person that can have their personalities wiped and can be imprinted with a new persona and skill set. These Dolls can be hostage negotiators, backup singing bodyguards, master thieves or blind cult members. People come to the Dollhouse if they have a problem and the Active is given the personality and skills to complete some objective. The Actives have voluntarily chosen this lot in life, although there is an element of slavery here, it has a more pronounced prostitution vibe. Echo and the other Dolls are slowly becoming self-aware and start to inch their way out of this mandated conformity.

Dollhouse works on many levels, on the surface you can view the program as procedural—Echo is needed for X, therefore she is programmed for Y to solve X and wackiness ensues. But when you examine it at a more critical angle, you find that it is a story of domination and a powerful institution that can turn you into anything they want you to be.

Other works of Whedon are stories that are often framed from a critical theory perspective. Critical theory is the study of oppressive practices that need to be changed. The examination of power in many forms is just one theme that is evident throughout the Whedonverse.

Many scholars and critics see Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a feminist narrative, as a young woman is underestimated by society and many patriarchal institutions (school, government, military, Watcher’s Council) and yet she is full of inner strength and physical power. Buffy doesn’t fit within these established structures and some of the show’s drama comes from this tension. Although on the surface, she fits the hegemonic notion of what a girl should be (attractive, thin, enjoys shopping and cute boys), Buffy is much more than what is expected. She is not a perfect feminist icon and that is part of what makes her story so compelling.

On Angel, the misuse of legal and corporate power is shown through the institution of Wolfram and Hart. In seasons 1 through 4, Angel fights against the employees and actions of this evil law firm. We learn that Wolfram and Hart is an organization that doesn’t care about people or justice, since they are too busy working on gaining more power. The 5th and final season of Angel, we see him working inside Wolfram and Hart. We see through this storyline that power is seductive and even those with the best intentions can be corrupted through corporations. This is illustrated in surface and metaphorical ways. Characters in the narrative mention that Angel has become a corporate puppet through his role at Wolfram and Hart, later in the season he literally becomes a puppet, with a felt body and a tear away nose. The character of Fred is also a victim to the corporation, as she is hollowed out and becomes a “shell” of the person she once was as she is transformed into the demon, Illyria. The Angel series finale is about battling a big bad institutionally based power structure, even though chances of winning are small. The goal isn’t to win; it is to show the powerful that heroes don’t back down-- they fight.

The series Firefly and the movie Serenity also share this critical theory theme. The Alliance is the most oppressive power in the ‘verse. There was a war and the Browncoats fought against the Alliance, the characters of Mal and Zoe were soldiers fighting for independence. The Browncoats are seen as outsiders and are subjected by the powerful Alliance and are forced out into outer planets or the margins of society. The character of River was used as a subject by unethical Alliance doctors and scientists to mold her into the ultimate weapon; this was all done without her consent. In the movie Serenity, they find out how Reevers (cannibalistic and animalistic people) were created. The people on the planet Miranda were given a drug to make them peaceful, compliant and non-aggressive. This made most of the population super lazy and they eventually just died because they gave up. A tiny segment of the population had the opposite effect to the medication and turned into the ultra violent Reevers. The Alliance denies all knowledge of this and worked hard to cover it up.

One thematic undercurrent of Dr. Horrible’s Sing a Long Blog is making societal changes. All of the main characters strive to make changes in the world, through computer mediated communication (Dr. Horrible/ Billy’s Blog), community activism (Penny’s work with the homeless) and arrogant heroism (Captain Hammer’s good deeds). Dr. Horrible talks a lot about unequal power structures. In one of his first blog post he makes these goals for social change known, “it’s not about making money. It’s about taking money. Destroying the status quo, because the status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it.” He also has a distain for the corporate system. In the first act he sings, “all that matters, taking matters into your own hands. Soon I’ll control everything my wish is your command.” He calls Captain Hammer a “corporate tool” as he represents conformity, militarism and traditional forms of masculinity. In a conversation with Penny, Billy tells her about his worldview, “I’m talking about an overhaul of the system. Putting the power in different hands.”

In Dollhouse, the corporate machine molds the Actives into personas that have a functional purpose. The first 5 episode shows a world where everything and anything is for sale. The clients of the Dollhouse pay for their services and the more life threatening the task, the more they can charge for it. Ethics and morals are out the window where people are products, the ultimate sign of corporate greed and human comodification. In the real world, it seems like overly capitalist corporate interests are not the least bit humanistic and the Dollhouse echoes this philosophy. Many of the employees at the Dollhouse have no problem with this as they view the Actives not as people, but as tools to accomplish a task. Laurence Dominic is worried that Adelle DeWitt, the manager of the Dollhouse, likes Echo. That is that some part of her acknowledges Echo’s humanity and that is dangerous. Other characters like Boyd Langton, Echo’s handler/mentor has true affectation for her and desperately cares for her well being.

The concept of Dollhouse can be used to play out some existential dilemmas through a television narrative. Dollhouse brings up some thought provoking ideas about what makes a person a person and shows a dystopian universe where people are transformed into human robots. In the Doll’s non-working states, they are childlike and docile and they can never assert any agency or uniqueness. Anything that is unseemly or problematic is taken out as a measure of control. People are dehumanized when freedom of choice and thought are taken away and shows that even in the harshest dictatorships the soul or strength of the human condition can prevail as the Dolls have shown glimpses of individuality even with this level of repression. The mysterious Alpha, a rouge Active, went into a murderous rage (I think we’ll find more about this on Friday’s episode), but others are showing other signs of defiance (Victor’s feelings towards Sierra and Echo’s unpredictableness during missions).

Even though I haven’t been wowed yet, Dollhouse is an interesting concept that can bring up lots of thought provoking scenarios. I’m waiting to see how this season evolves, before I decide if it is worthy of the Whedon cannon.

Death in the Dollhouse

2008-11-09T18:12:00.004-07:00

Waiting to watch the premiere of Dollhouse is full of drama, months before the show is about to air. We get the rumors of production issues and reshoots. Most recently the show was changing time slots to Friday night. It is know as the Fox death slot and it is where Firefly and other good programs died there. People are buzzing across the net that this show doomed before it ever crosses the airwaves. I want to take a half-full approach to these reported problems.

Three reasons to not write its obituary quite yet:

I know of a certain little show that started out in the death slot and lasted 9 seasons. The X-Files began on Fridays and eventually moved out when it gained an audience. I still think that Friday’s are problematic, but it isn’t the end of the world.

Technology has changed. The DVR revolution has changed the way people watch TV. It doesn’t matter if you are busy on Friday night, (my perceived reason why it is the death slot) because the TIVO is home, available to record. I don’t know how this plays with how programs are evaluated, but it may help with the timeslot issue. Secondly, the network has other things to look at in addition to the ratings. Viewings on the web and iTunes downloads are also in play. Something the crazy Whedon fans (like me) will jump all over.

I have faith in Joss Whedon. He is the guy that made a mid season replacement, on a second string network based on a mediocre movie into a critical success and a crazy obsessive cult. I trust him, because of his track record of creative successes. Let’s just hope he has an opportunity to do this thing this time.

Until February 13, I will be tune out negative speculation.

Why are Vampires Sexy?

2008-09-08T19:46:00.004-06:00

I watched True Blood last night and really enjoyed it. I will talk about that on another post, but some things I’ve been reading promoting the new show are talking about the hotness of vamps.

Every since the 1930s Dracula movie came out, vamps have been sexy. The human woman/vampire male pairing is hot. It could be the fang/penetration thing or is it that bad boys are inherently sexy.

There is a trend to show male vampires as heroic and/or loving. Dark Shadows was a show that started this sort of thing (I think). Some of those Anne Rice boys are also examples of this mold. You know there is Angel and Spike, two soulful vampires and my personal vampires. They are loving, sexy and of course badass. You got the Moonlight guy and the Twilight guy. Bill on True Blood is of the same mold.

I thought about a few more reasons that why the girls love those vampires, especially the ones that won’t that won’t kill you.

They are worldly. The think about living through history and traveled the world. You know they lived through so many eras, they could’ve worn powered wigs and possibly later inspired Billy Idol’s look. Vamps must be good conversationalists. Vampires are more interesting that the average frat boy drinking beer at a football game.

Vampires are exciting, since there is that edge of danger. It is that potential danger, just beneath the surface. A vampire’s fangs are hidden, but you know they are still there. The sex with vampires is no consequences, sans the Angel “one moment of perfect happiness thing.” No STDs or pregnancy threat, so it seems like a no brainer.

Read more discussion of sexy vampire guys:

The Six Sexiest TV Vampires Ever
Television Without Pity

Vampires Stake a Claim on Audiences' Hearts
Washington Post

Vampires: Sexy or not sexy?
LA Times

Oscar Wilde, Media Criticism and Blogs

2008-08-31T09:47:00.004-06:00

My brother and his girlfriend had a baby boy and named him is Dorian. I looked up the meaning of the name it has historical and literary roots. The Dorians were a warrior tribe of ancient Greeks. The name is most famous for the novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde.

This was a long winded way to say that I downloaded The Picture of Dorian Gray. I read the preface and it really resonated with me. It is probably more relevant today than when it was first published in 1890.

Below is the forward in its entirety:

The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim. The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things.

The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography. Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.

Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty.

There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.

The nineteenth century dislike of realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass.

The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass. The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium. No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved. No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style. No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything. Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art. Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art. From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician. From the point of view of feeling, the actor's craft is the type. All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself. We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.

All art is quite useless.

-Oscar Wilde

Although this seems to be Wilde’s response to his work or anticipated criticism of his novel, I took it as a great perspective for artists and critics to consider. I found this forward very interesting on many fronts. I like the idea of media (literary) criticism as a dangerous pursuit, because at its core, analysis of art is introspective and a form of autobiography.

I think this note about criticism and analysis of literary arts is more applicable today, with blogs and other technological outlets. Everyone can start a blog and become a cultural, literary, media or art critic with no credentials or expertise. This is good, because now criticism isn’t just in the domain of the elitists. Although much of this analysis on the internet is just gloried plot summaries. I’m not saying my blog is better, I haven’t demonstrated that yet, but I’m trying.

I think the act of criticism/analysis is so telling of self, that some people are afraid to go there. When you ask someone (especially a teen, but I don’t want to bash) what they thought of a movie you usually get these two responses, “it sucked” or “it was good.” I then ask, what they did or didn’t like about it. Many people don’t know the answer to the question. Here are my three reasons this occurs:

Some people don’t view entertainment with a critical eye. They enjoy it at face value. For example, did they think a was a comedy was funny or did an action movie keep them on the edge of their seats or did a

The second issue is related to the first. Some people don’t have the language to adequately express themselves in this regard. I mean someone could say, I don’t like the acting or the excess violence wasn’t for me

Others are freaked about the disclosure of self such analysis might expose about themselves. This goes into Wilde’s observation about the autobiographical nature of criticism. They don’t want their ideas to reflect on their coolness or political ideologies.

These are just a few thoughts I had about this topic. Although I rewrote this about 5 times, maybe I can use the autobiographical disclosure defense for not blogging as often as I should.

TV vs. Movies

2008-07-26T17:43:00.004-06:00

I’m going to see the X-Files: I Want to Believe tomorrow, because the people I want to see it with can’t go today. Before I see the movie, I’m going to have a rant about TV vs. Movies.

I liked the 1998 X-Files movie, but it was not as good as the series. It is an example of an excellent television series is better than the movie version. The average movie is like 90 to 120 minutes long, but on TV a show like the X-Files had 202 episodes x 45 minutes each that is about 9090ish minutes of narrative. How could 100 minutes ever compare to 9000 minutes?

This is true when also looking at the 1992, Buffy movie and the 1997-2003 television series. The series opened us up to dozens of great characters (other than Buffy) that you care about (Spike, Angel, Xander, Willow, Giles, Cordelia, Oz, Wesley, Faith, Dawn, Tara and so on).

Also look at Firefly and Serenity. While I enjoyed Serenity the movie, I missed the little moments and character interaction in Firefly the television series.

I did read some recent reviews for the new X-Files movie; some critics said that the movie was like an “extended television episode” and not full length feature quality. This attitude makes television an inferior form of entertainment. This is only true if, you have a hard-on for blockbuster special effects and don’t care about narrative or characters. Another reason you might find this true is if you are a “cinema snob” like a film critic type. You also may not be watching the best shows on the air or the greatest DVD season collections.

One caveat before I give my reasons for television’s superiority, I’m talking about television that fits in the quality television paradigm. View the Wikipedia page for Quality Television for a brief explanation on what that is. I see it as a program that has narrative complexity, which is thought provoking and explores characters and relationships in interesting ways.

Here are five main reasons why storytelling in television is better than movies.

Television can show better character development over time. Watching a character develop over the course of an hour doesn’t have the same payoff as slowly watching a character develop over the course of 5 seasons. One of my favorite examples of this is Wesley on Buffy and Angel. He started out as an ineffective, stuffy, prissy replacement Watcher to Buffy and Faith. When he made the transition to Angel the series, he became competent, heroic, dark and sexy.
The serialized nature of television can tell many different interconnected stories. Television creators can develop stories that unfold in 40 minutes or 4 years. TV isn’t a slave to a beginning, middle and end format, episodes do have that element, but things can keep you guessing and wondering, one of the best examples of this is LOST.
A good television show can play with genre on an episode by episode basis. The series can be a comedy, drama, teen movie, romance, horror, sci-fi, musical depending on the individual episode or scene. It doesn’t have just one vibe.
With the enormous about of television channels, programs can be narrowcasted to fit a niche audience. TV shows can be smarter, because the next channel over can broadcast to the not so smart people. Movies are created to please the international masses.
Quality shows can deal with diverse issues and themes. Movies are limited to one main theme. TV shows can comment on a variety of issues in a timely manner. I love how South Park (not quality in everyone’s book) can turn around fast enough to be in sync with current events.

Of course once in a while a movie comes out that is glorious and transcendent, for example the Lord of the Rings Trilogy blew me away; some things are better on a larger than life screen. But honestly, most of today’s movies are throw-away popcorn entertainment. I’m not compelled to go to the movies very often, because not much influences me to sit in a dark room with a lot of annoying people. I figure I can wait 8 months and watch the damn thing on HBO.

Read more about this:

Gordon, D. (2007, February 27). Why TV Is Better Than The Movies. Newsweek , p. 52.

Mittell, J. (2006). Narrative Complexity in Contemporary American Television. Velvet Light Trap: A Critical Journal of Film & Television , 29-40.

Newman, M. Z. (2006). From Beats to Arcs: Toward a Poetics of Television Narrative. Velvet Light Trap: A Critical Journal of Film & Television , 16-28.

Dr. Horrible Act II & III

2008-07-20T23:38:00.004-06:00

Here are a view thoughts, I don’t to linear recaps.

Act Two of Dr. Horrible’s Sing Along Blog is just as good as the first part. Act III broke my heart, something that Joss has done before (Wesley, Tara, Fred, Wash and many others).

Dr. Horrible follows a classic three act structure; this is easy to see when the show is split up into these equal 13 minute parts. The first act sets up the plot and introduces the audience to the characters and the universe they inhabit. Act two is the confrontation. The third part is the resolution and the climax.

I think all three leads are perfect for the parts they play. Neil Patrick Harris, Nathan Fillion and Felicia Day all have pleasant singing voices and their voices fit with the personas of the characters.

Harris as Dr. Horrible/Billy is sweet, jealous and ultimately tragic. At the end of Act Two he gives this wicked smirk that is totally perfect, when he decides killing Captain Hammer will solve all of his problems. He has a lot of pathos in this role and the audience (or at least I) rooted for. The character of Dr. Horrible is full of contractions. He wants Penny to know that he is “a true villain” although she appears to be more turned on by heroics. Dr. Horrible isn’t evil, just misunderstood. He doesn’t want to fight Johnny Snow, because “there are kids in that park.” He wants to get rid of pain (see lyrics to the freeze ray song) and injustice (putting power into different hands). Resorting to vengeance and violence is his downfall. If he would’ve waited Penny might have seen that Captain Hammer is “cheesy on the outside” and inside and would like Billy for Billy.

Captain Hammer is arrogant clueless bastard; he does good, but for all the wrong reasons (ego, fame, and groupies). Fillion plays the part so well that I forgot he was Captain Mal “tightpants” Reynolds on Firefly and for me that is big. I love that he plays the role with bravado, but I really enjoyed how he delivered the line, “the hammer is my penis.” He whispers it to Billy and that makes the whole thing more perverse.

I loved Felicia Day in this. Penny is relatable and cute. She is a perfect pair with Billy, but the Hammer is in the way. When I saw poor Penny waiting for Billy at the laundromat with an extra frozen yogurt, I knew we might not get a happy ending.

After Act II, I wondered what would happen in the finale. Will Dr. Horrible get into the Evil League of Evil? Will Penny dump the Hammer for the Horrible? Does Billy/Dr. Horrible have the balls/skills to take out Captain Hammer? The cute-little superhero musical turned in to a tragic opera.

My favorite part of Act III is seeing the Evil League of Evil. I loved the letter and phone call from Bad Horse and was happy I got to see him in the end. I always pictured him as a horse and not a man with a mustache. I loved the other members of the cabal, especially Fake Thomas Jefferson and Dead Bowie.

The free online is gone. Now download the whole thing on iTunes for only $3.99.

I hope people who were not Whedon fans before join the cult, because of Dr. Horrible.

Second Thoughts: Wall-E’s 2008 Presidential Campaign

2008-07-20T22:46:00.001-06:00

Wall-E might not make such a good president. You know, because his movie is harsh on non-thin Americans, plus I heard that the movie isn't that great. This commentary in Slate contends that the movie Wall-E equates environmental collapse and obesity. The article says that the film’s satire is simple minded and unfair as it promotes myths about overweight people.

I'm not voting for Wall-E.

Does Television Belong in Academia?

2008-07-17T19:53:00.002-06:00

Check out this awesome post!

Nikki Stafford writes television episode guides. She was also a featured speaker at Slayage. Here is a link to her great blog post, as she answers the question, Does Television Belong in Academia?

I say “hell yea” and she agrees.

My favorite part is when Nikki asserts that people who criticize those to write/speak about television academically are watching the wrong television shows.

Dr. Horrible Act One

2008-07-16T00:10:00.002-06:00

This 13-minute segment introduces us to the characters and gets the plot rolling. We also get some great songs that are so catchy. These are my first little thoughts.

The theme of the piece is fighting against hegemonic societal norms. Here is a quote from Dr. Horrible that is just great. “Destroying the status quo because the status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it.”

This project juxtaposes the roles of hero and villain. Dr. Horrible is a nice guy, who just happens to be an evil genius. Captain Hammer is a pompous jerk, who just happens to be a superhero.

The character of Dr. Horrible is original, but I can see glimpses of other Whedon characters. Parts of the Dr. Horrible persona remind me of a Warren Meers type although he has ethics. He made me think of William the Bloody awful poet if he was good at science. Instead of writing Victorian Era poetry to express feelings for his muse, Dr. Horrible writes a blog, about a woman he loves from afar. He is also like William/Spike has he works on his

Each of the three main characters has a personality trait that connects them—they want to help change the world and yet they do it in their own way. Dr. Horrible, through his blog and super villain deeds against the establishment. Penny volunteers for the homeless shelter and is on the street trying to raise awareness of the issue. Captain Hammer does fight against people who he views as evil and/or different.

I’m looking forward to part 2 on Thursday.

Waiting in the Wings: Deleted Ballet

2008-07-10T07:24:00.000-06:00

As I was getting ready for work this morning, the Angel episode, Waiting in the Wings was on TV. This inspired me to watch the deleted scene from this show. It is where Wesley imagines Fred in the ballet. The funny part is when he joins her.

I just have to share it.

The LOST Book Club

2008-07-09T22:56:00.000-06:00

iTunes is now featuring the LOST Book Club. These are audiobooks that are either referenced in dialogue or seen in the background. Some of the choices are oblivious like: Lord of the Flies, Alice in Wonderland, Catch-22 and On the Road. There are surprises (to me—a fan and not a hardcore LOST meaning seeker) like A Wrinkle in Time, The Brothers Karamazov, Heart of Darkness, Carrie and Slaughterhouse Five.

This is pretty cool, but there is one huge disappointment. No Judy Blume's Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. I love when Sawyer is reading it on the beach in, The Whole Truth. He doesn't like because it is "predictable" and "doesn't have enough sex". I find a perverse joy in watching a 30-something man reading about a tweenaged girl's first bra and first period.

Article O’ Interest: Wall-E for President

2008-07-08T21:54:00.001-06:00

Wall-E could kick the asses of Obama and McCain, if he wasn't a digital animation character. This article from the New York Times opinion page:

Wall-E for President

Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

2008-07-03T21:41:00.000-06:00

Have you heard of Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog? It is a musical-action-comedy thingy that is making its debut on the web July 15. It looks like it going to be pretty cool, especially if you are a fan of the Once More with Feeling episode of Buffy. It also helps if you always thought Doogie Houser (Neil Patrick Harris) and Captain Mal from Firefly (Nathan Fillion) would make perfect arch-nemeses. And it is Joss Whedon for goodness sakes!

Here is the schedule:
Part 1: Tuesday, July 15
Part 2: Thursday, July 17
Part 3: Saturday, July 19

All three parts will stay up only through July 20, but deals are currently underway to make it available for downloading shortly thereafter.

TV Guide Online has a cool article about it: http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Roush-Dispatch/Joss-Whedon-Dr/800042425

Watch a preview of it below.

Teaser from Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog on Vimeo.

Slayage, Power, Gender Issues. . . .

2008-07-03T20:26:00.000-06:00

One of the reasons I started this blog was to “have a chat about TV.” I guess it is going to start out as a monologue, until I get people to start reading it. Last month I attended the Slayage Conference in Arkadelphia Arkansas. This academic conference was about the television programs created by Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel & Firefly). It was there that I got inspired to start writing about television and popular culture, instead of internalizing all of my thoughts. This blog will also help me curb the desire to have the occasional face-to-face discussion with someone that doesn’t care about the homoerotic subtext in Smallville.

Why I haven’t added to the blog, until recently is that I had an online class that kept me busy writing a lot and I didn’t have the energy to have any additional computer time. The course was titled, Communication and Power. It was a very interesting course and I will use some of that critical theory I learned to add to the discussion here.

Below is an excerpt from a post I made for my online class. It kind of thing fits within my whole, talking about television theme of this blog. The topic of the discussion board post is images of women in the media.

This academic conference was about the television programs Buffy, Angel & Firefly. Many presentations I attended focused on the staging of gender in those TV series. Papers topics included: Girlie Feminism, Violence and the Slayer, the Limitations of Buffy’s Feminism, Hegemony and the Performance of Gender, Buffy & Nancy Drew—Development of Strong Female Role Models in Adolescent Literature, Consumer and Domestic Stereotypes in Buffy, the Damaged Man in Angel, and Gazing at Male Vampires—Bodies as Spectacle.

Here is what I think when using that show as a lens to view media images of women. Power is a huge theme within the Buffy series. Although the Buffy character does fit the little, cute, blonde image that popularized in the media that stereotype is subverted. The character does have extreme physical power and yet she works on keeping her outside appearance girlish and sexualized. Buffy can be strong and yet have power in various aspects of her life. Although that issue is one tiny aspect of the program there are many more issues surrounding gender roles of men and woman on Buffy and its spin-off series Angel. What makes the show especially interesting is that it doesn’t give simple, “afterschool special” life lessons—but forces the audience to think about issues of gender and power in revealing ways. This show creates a dialogue about gender and other societal issues. If you never have seen the show, I suggest you watch it.

About This Blog. . . .

2008-06-08T19:30:00.000-06:00

The name of this blog is a quote from an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In the fifth season episode Checkpoint, Buffy tells these Watchers that, “You can't do anything with the information you have except maybe publish it in the "Everyone Thinks we’re Insane-O's Home Journal.” It may be helpful to note that it is the same episode where Lydia (the female Watcher) tells Spike, “I wrote my thesis on you.”

So this blog will be my little bits of insanity, analysis (academic and otherwise) on topics of television and sometimes other media.