Authentic Characters Not Special Effects Makes Movies Special

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

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)

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.

1. 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.
   



2. 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?
   



3. 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.
   



4. 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.
   



5. 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.
   



6. 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.
   



7. 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.
   



8. 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.
   



9. 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.
   



10. 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

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

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!

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.

1. 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.
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
3. Foxy is a clean dog--not filthy. See above, about the poop.
   
   
4. How can a dog be immoral?
   
   
5. 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.
   
   
6. 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

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.

1. It isn’t about dating or fashion or superficial stuff. The main themes are family and good vs. evil.
   
   
2. 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?
   
   
3. 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.
   
   
4. 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).
   
   
5. It makes it cool to like 70s-80s hard rock.
   
   
6. Supernatural takes urban legends and other postmodern fears and flips them into new and compelling stories.
   
   
7. 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.
   
   
8. I love that they never added a third character to go on missions with them. I wouldn’t like someone riding in the backseat.
   
   
9. The story keeps evolving. The new season shows an epic battle with demonic evil and surely evil’s ass will be royally kicked.
   
   
10. 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

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

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

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.