MindsBase

Human / Visitor relations

Well, at the request of my loyal fans, I’ve got some thoughts about the “V” premiere from Tuesday. I shuffled my tail down to my mother’s house for a DVR session on her big screen Wednesday.

I have to agree that it was a little disappointing, but you saw my over-the-top expectations so… in a way, I expected to be disappointed. However, here are the good points of the premiere:

1. They understand sci-fi storytelling pretty well. They answered the important audience questions of believability when they arose, for the most part. For example, when Anna’s HEUGE image first appears on the underbelly of the starship, she speaks in English. I had barely formed the “oh yeah?” question about her speaking English when the scene cut to television images of other cities, where Anna was speaking the native language of each region. Good save, guys. And good implications. These aliens know more about us than we think. They know our languages, yet they’ve just arrived? Hmmmm, she says, with a sinister eyebrow raise.

2. Anna did beautifully in her role. Her interview with Chad Decker (I can’t stop thinking of “Party of Five” when I see him — and what’s with his teeth? Are they dentures?) was wonderfully tense, and made you wonder what Chad is made of. And Chad, in my opinion, is in the most interesting character position, rubbing up directly with the main villain. I’m interested to see what scuffles they put him in and what decisions he makes. I hope they build him into someone more than just a pawn. He’s positioned to be a rook, at least, against this queen. Maybe even a knight.

3. SPOILER ALERT! Alan Tudyk — okay, could they have blindsided us more with his — ahem — reptilian side? Wash is an alien! I was sort of sad, because I love Alan and wanted him with the good guys. Well, my big hope is that his character arc includes him becoming a traitorous visitor and fighting with the humans. Can they twist him back around over the course of a season? I think so, and it would be divine storytelling. But will they? Not sure. Think Alias, guys! Twist those characters! Shapeshift them! We love it!

4. And speaking of traitorous visitors, I am so glad they are setting up more than a good humans/bad visitors dynamic. They’ve hinted at all sorts of shades of gray. Ryan Nichols as the visitor that has gone native, who promises that there are other traitors that will help the humans. Now, just because we see reptilian underbody, we can’t assume they are bad. NICE. Then, we have Erica Evans son, Tyler, joining the young nazis ambassador program and getting entangled with the visitors. Will he be used unwittingly against his people, or even willingly choose to fight with the visitors?

Okay, so there are some great mystery boxes set in place during this pilot. (I’m calling it a pilot, though that may not be the correct term since the show is picked up already [for now].) Here are the problems:

1. Biggest problem, I think, is that it was an hour pilot rather than a ninety-minute pilot. Sci-fi needs those extra minutes to establish a) the world, b) the problem and c) the characters fully. So, we got the world, the problem, but we were a little thin on the characters. All the character threads had to be set in motion, and it’s a large cast to introduce. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Firefly pilot must have been ninety. It had to introduce nine crewmembers, all coming from very different backgrounds and with distinct motivations. “V” needed ninety. In sixty, we got a little about each of the main character’s backgrounds, but we didn’t get more than cliche motivations and value systems. Of course Erica goes running to find her only son at a time of crisis. Of course Ryan runs to his fiance. Ho, hum.

Here’s what I hope: that future episodes explore deeply ONE main character’s conundrum rather than trying to move all the characters forward equally in each episode. Use the story to tell us something deeper about someone. Don’t skim the surface with all of them at once. Trade off. Do I think this will happen? Not sure.

2. Other problem. I saw the story being butchered a couple times. Gives strength to my theory that there may be a lot of cooks in this kitchen. For example, the most important line of the hour, the climax — the thesis, if you will — was this (wording is not exact):

They [the visitors] are forging a terrible weapon here. Devotion.

Waaa? Devotion is not a weapon. You can’t hit someone with Devotion. Devotion is something they give you. The story required the use of the word at the other end of that stick — a much more important word. A word that tells what you (the visitor) are hitting people with. What you are giving them and then turning around and using against them. Do you know what that word is? It’s upstream from DEVOTION. It’s a four-letter word…

Got it? Leave your guess in the comments. Come on. We all know what makes a great story. We are consumers of story all our lives. What word did they need to use there?

And why didn’t they use it?

My theory is that someone thought it would be construed as some kind of political statement. So they sacrificed the storytelling. I found that pretty cowardly. Tell the bold story. People may read into your words things you didn’t intend, but at least they’ll feel something. DEVOTION was a cowardly choice. The story required a word that has been used and misused over the centuries! The same word used by Hitler and Jesus. By devils and gods –  just what the visitors are.

So what word is it?

Oh my gosh. I was a huge fan of the original TV miniseries “V”, which I was shocked to realize I must have seen at the age of 6-7, since it came out in 1983-4. It has stuck with me all these years. I must not be the only one, because you’ll notice it’s available on DVD. Go put it in your queue. I’ll wait. Don’t forget the “final battle” discs.

I have to tell you, I’m stoked about ABC reinventing the series for TV — premiere on Tuesday, November 3. My expectations are thru da rufe, so I hope I’m not disappointed in this promising new series.

But how could I not be excited? Here’s what they have going for them:

1. Major alien girl power

Here’s the original series’ “Diana”:

and now we’re updated with the absolute perfect casting choice of Morena Baccarin (Inara from Firefly) as “Anna”:

I also see that Elizabeth Mitchell from “Lost” is in it, but since I’m like the only non-Lost fan alive, I’ll mention her as a footnote.

2. Character focus

That’s what made the original V great — it was all about the characters, and how they responded differently to the new alien “friends”. On the ABC.com – V site, there’s an obvious character bend to the new series, with character bio links in center stage.

3. Sci-fi writers/producers

Well, this could be a plus or a minus. We’ll have to see. Looks like the writer/producer team is from the original series, as well as a similar series that I never got into called “Alien Nation” and a later one I never saw (but am going to check out) called “The 4400″ about alien abductees coming back to earth.

The good thing is that these guys are obviously committed to sci-fi, but it may mean that they will be a bit formulaic on character development. That worries me. “Lois & Clark” was great because it was created not by marvel comics enthusiasts but by Deborah Joy LeVine who thought she could make it into a romantic comedy. And the new Star Trek movie was so great as it was put in the action-storyteller hands of J.J. Abrams, who is a self-described non-Trekkie.

Sometimes the best things come when you mix genres. So we’ll see. Can they take a great sci-fi premise and create a gripping character drama? I’m crossing my fingers. Especially since it looks like Alan Tudyk is cast as well. All we need is Mal and Zoe and I’ll start shedding tears!

Now, there are rumors that the studio hasn’t liked the new “V” scripts, and other quibbles, so I hope the right persons get their way. Of course, the “right persons” are never the execs, but always the writers.

TiVo it for Tuesday! As a non-TVer, I’ll be checking it out online.

While I’m on the pro-family kick, I think I’ll review The Family Man (from 2000, Nicolas Cage and Tea Leoni), which is another pro-family movie.

(Though, like Spanglish, it is not an all-ages movie — it’s also PG-13.)

The Family Man is about a wall street executive who gets a chance to see the life’s road he didn’t take — the one of marriage and family vs. high-powered career. A “what might have been” story.

Now, the last movie Nicolas Cage was in that I really liked was Raising Arizona, so I remember that I didn’t have high hopes when I first saw this. But his pairing with Tea Leoni (also from Spanglish) was so charming I was taken in.

For instance, when he wakes on the second morning of his “glimpse” he hears the baby cry and goes to the bathroom door where his wife is showering to tell her about it. She can’t hear him because she’s singing in the shower (Rolling Stones, no less) so he must open the door to get her attention. The look on his face when he must deal with her nudity (not shown on camera, but firmly implied through the obscure glass) as a non-sexual event is PRICELESS, as is her annoyed “what’s the problem” attitude of a woman who has been married for thirteen years and is interrupted in the midst of an otherwise perfect shower experience.

Okay, found the vid — right at the beginning of this clip on YouTube. I warned you of the semi-nudity right? But finish my review first because once you start the clip, you won’t want to stop as he tries to change the baby’s diaper and deal with the daughter’s awareness that he is not actually her dad.

There are some great lines in this movie, like when Cage tries to have it all by moving his family into the city so he can work for his pre-glimpse firm, and he tells the upset Leoni that he wants to give her a life that people will envy.

“They already do envy us,” she says. And she’s so right — yes, some people envy those with worldly success. But another class of people value personal, family success even more. It’s the kind of movie that makes you question which class of person you are.

And of course, the movie’s mantra: “I choose us.” It’s Jerry Maguire-worthy!

This one gets four out of five nods.

I watched Spanglish last night, and it was nothing like what I thought it’d be. I hoped it wouldn’t be like The Waterboy or Big Daddy or several other Adam Sandler films, but I didn’t expect it to be more serious and real than 50 First Dates. It is his most mature film to date, hands down.

Hopefully, people didn’t go into this movie looking for a love story like Dates (or a crude farce like Waterboy) because this movie actually had something to say — something Hollywood almost never says.

So what did this movie (which was, incidentally, funny and charming as well) say?

It showed parents sacrificing their own happiness for their kids’ well-being. It showed them choosing family obligation over momentary pleasure. It showed them, in short, being responsible grown ups.

Shocking, I know!

Well, not Tea Leoni’s character, but she was the catalyst for the story, and she played her part so that you both laughed at her and felt sorry for her. It was a razor-fine line. She must be a pretty great actress.

But Adam Sandler and Paz Vega played their concerned parent roles well, and it became obvious that Sandler believes in this story. He didn’t set himself up as a perfect man, but as a real one, trying desperately to hold his family together.

The show-stealers were the two daughters, though. Shelbie Bruce as Vega’s Mexican-born, Americanized daughter and Sarah Steele as Sandler’s kind, grounded, charming daughter. It was those two parent-daughter relationships that made the film, and these two actresses did wonderful jobs.

Two things were wrong with this film:

1. The Title — come on, who thought this was a good idea? Yes, a language barrier is a part of the movie, and you could even argue that the two people communicating the worst were Sandler and his wife! But the word Spanglish is just plain ugly. Words have shape and sound, and much like Susan Sarandon’s movie Stepmom, this title kept me away from the film. It doesn’t say heartwarming movie to me.

2. The Teasers — this movie is grossly mis-billed as a “zany” comedy, which, aside from Leoni’s incredibly strange sex scene, is way off. Here’s what Netflix’s blurb says about Spanglish:

Cultures clash with a mighty clang in this comedy of manners and mayhem directed by James Brooks. When a beautiful Mexican housekeeper, Flor (Paz Vega), is hired by a rich Los Angeles family, everyone’s life is upended in hilariously zany ways, especially when the parents (Tea Leoni and Adam Sandler) make it their mission to be so welcoming that they become overwhelming — especially the dad, who’s quickly smitten by Flor’s beauty.

This makes it sound like Sandler plays a guy who would start an affair with his housekeeper right under his wife’s nose, which is really the opposite of the events of the movie. And using words like “hilarious” and “mayhem” makes it sound like fluff when it is substance (with flair). And it led me to worry all through the final moments of the film that the whole movie setup was just to get the two leads into bed. Thankfully, it wasn’t, and if you haven’t seen this movie, be forewarned. It is a movie about parents and children more than about men and sex. Hurrah for that!

Think I’ll start rating the things I review… how about nods? I give this four out of five nods. If you’ve been avoiding Spanglish for fear it is like Big Daddy, don’t worry. It has its priorities straight. See it.

= 4 nods

So, the other night I was sorely lacking in Netflix movies, so I thumbed through my well-worn personal collection, and trumped out the Hollywood version of Jane Austin’s Pride and Prejudice.

I own this movie, yes. I also hate it.

Or, I did hate it when I first saw it. But since I love the story (like every other English-speaking pansy) I thought I’d better let it rest and try it again later. And yes, on subsequent viewings, I’ve hated it LESS, but I still hate the poor movie as though it has personally injured me.

Why, I asked myself upon this latest viewing. I shouldbe able to rationally dissect it after a handful of viewings, shouldn’t I? Why do I have such a visceral reaction to it?

Here are some thoughts:

1. Elizabeth — is poorly cast. Now, I’ve liked Keira Knightly in other roles — she makes a great Elizabeth Swan, so she’s not inappropriate for period dramas (did I just call Pirates of the Carribean a period drama? Ho ho ho!) But why on earth did the poor woman think that spunk meant baring one’s teeth and looking as cat-like as possible. Her performance lacked elegance. Elizabeth Bennet was not brash, just spirited. This distinction is important to the story because she contrasts her ridiculous family (as well as her elegant but demure elder sister — a delicate balance).
2. Darcy — is poorly cast. Okay, I had to look up Matthew Macfadyen to see what else he’s done, so obviously I’m not an MI-5 fan. Maybe his fans were pleased. And I’m not saying it’s easy to reprise the role that made Colin Firth an immortal sex symbol. But all his mannerisms seemed off to me. He helps her into the carriage, then, upon walking away, splays out his fingers like he’s trying to shake off something disgusting. Maybe he’d gently stroke the tips of his fingers with his thumb, re-enacting the touch of her hand? Maybe he’d clasp his hands together in front of his face, bringing her touch to his own lips. Splayed fingers, not working for me. The pasty mask that was supposed to be shy indifference didn’t work for me, either.
3. Other castings — oh dear. Mr. Bingley is not a buffoon! Mr. Collins is not a serial killer! But I best move on…
4. Dialogue — Why is everyone in such a hurry to say their lines? Are they trying to fit a three hour movie into two hours? Apparently. Yikes. Slow down, people.
5. Beauty — the film lost something of the art of Jane’s book. Something the 1995 BBC version captured. I get it — they were trying to differentiate the public assembly dance from the Netherfield ball, but the assembly came off dirty and chaotic. Dude, I would thumb my nose if I were Darcy! Yet in this scene we are supposed to side with Elizabeth.

But here’s the real problem with this version: The Screenplay!The credited writer is Deborah Moggach who has no other notable credits, but as is often the case with Hollywood, the compromised story and affected dialogue may not be her fault… it may have been a case of too many cooks in the kitchen.

The thing is, you can’t rush a character story. You can’t fit all the scenes from the book into two hours and make any of them feel genuine and nuanced, subtle and understated. Pride and Prejudice is over 120,000 words long. Harry Potter six had to hack it to the bone to display 170,000 words onscreen… but then I think they’ll bleed over some key points into HP7. But I digress.

Lesson to be learned: Writing is important! A good screenplay is like the first domino. When it falls, everything down the line suffers. And it’s really hard to adapt a well-woven character story into a two-hour narrative. When adapting a classic you have this ugly desire to be “faithful” to the book. I’d rather see them be true to the spirit of the book than to the actual scenes. They tried, with P&P, but ultimately I think they failed. You don’t love Elizabeth’s spunk, you don’t admire Darcy’s reserve, you don’t laugh at Mr. Collins or understand Charlotte’s choice. Wickham and Georgiana become cardboard and don’t feel important to the plot, and poor Bingley is truly cringe-worthy. Jane and her parents survive rather well, as does Lydia. Lady Catherine is given too much screen time, presumably to play her role in the reversal of fortune at the end, but frankly the stronger motivator of reconciliation is what Darcy does for Lydia. Not that I would change the book one iota. But a film is not a book.

I give the Hollywood version of Pride and Prejudice a paltry two nods:

Last night, feeling the void where a great period adaptation should be, I put on Little Women. Ahhhh. Need satisfied*.

* To be fair, Pride and Prejudice is a longer novel than Little Women by 30,000 words.

Now, to end on a sweet note:

–Pride and Prejudice, 1995, BBC adaptation