Last weekend, I had the distinct displeasure of watching, 'Mamma Mia!' The exclamation mark in the title about sums it up.
Where to begin on what's wrong with it. Let's start with most obvious, the singing. In Woody Allen's 'Everyone Says I Love You' actors with indifferent singing talent burst into song at a moment's notice. The effect is both charming and humorous. However, the music wasn't really supposed to be about humor in Mamma Mia. The primary appeal of the Broadway version was the pitch perfect rendition of the immensely popular ABBA classics. Yet, inexplicably, Phyllida Lloyd opted for the Woody Allen route in this movie, with disastrous consequences. Instead of ABBA renditions in all their glory (and sugary sweet peppiness), we are treated to painful renditions belted out by actors who struggle with the pitch, tone, and seem to shout the high notes. Its like a bad episode of American Idol, without the schadenfreude as the extreme close-up on the actors faces brings into sharp relief the bulging eyes and facial muscles taut with the obvious strain of their effort.
To make matters worse, Ms. Lloyd attempts to mask her actors' musical inadequacies by drowning out their off key notes with background music, which she often opts to start playing well before the actors start singing, thereby alerting viewers to the oncoming song and making the scene even more unnatural than it otherwise would have been.
This was Phyllida Lloyd's first attempt at directing a movie, and it shows. The lighting is so unnatural that many scenes look as if they were filmed on a Broadway set rather than on location, which would have been fine, if that had been the intention. Moreover, her casting was off. In the movie, Meryl Streep plays a woman with a 20 year old daughter, conceived as a result of a youthful affair. Meryl Streep is a wonderful actress, but she's 59. She would have to have had the affair at 39 for her to have been the mother, an age that would seem to diminish the likelihood of such a fling. She looks more like a grandmother than a mother of a 20 year old.
The plot of Mamma Mia! bears an uncanny resemblance to the 1968 movie "Buona Sera, Mrs. Campbell" starring Gina Lollobrigida. In that movie, the three fathers actually do know about and support their daughter, and the mother, Gina Lollobrigida, is very much a vamp. Both the character of the mother and the age are significantly more believable. If you would like to see a more believable and better made version of Mamma Mia!, you might want to try the 1968 version instead. If its the songs that really attract you, you'd be better off with a CD of ABBA's Greatest Hits.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
Confused ...
I am a bit confused. I thought the 12 colonies were destroyed in the classic version of the series just as they were in the recent version. Then, how come in episode six, The Lost Warrior, Apollo lands up on a planet with humans? Are the 12 colonies not the only human colonies? If the only survivors are the ones on the ships, then where does this planet fit in? Also, if there are so many planets on which people can settle, why do they insist on taking civilians around ships?
I have to say though that these are growing on me. What is fascinating is that each series is, in a way, an examination of the culture at the time it was made.
I have to say though that these are growing on me. What is fascinating is that each series is, in a way, an examination of the culture at the time it was made.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
What's up with Wall-E?
I was looking forward to watching Wall-E, particularly given the high ratings it has received from critics. Such was not to be.
Before I go on, let me warn you that what is about to follow may contain some spoilers.
On one level, Wall-E is a charming love story. It is a fairytale, where love is predicated on mutual companionship and friendship that can never be consummated, and is not based on physical attraction. It is a modern rendition of the type of fairytale that was the hallmark of Disney movies in Walt Disney's lifetime.
Wall-E has invited the ire of many conservatives for its vision of a bleak world, where consumerism has reduced human beings to bloated fat beings confined to their couches, so engrossed in their catered world of pleasure on demand that they are not even aware of the environment around them. Earth has been reduced to a massive abandoned garbage dump. Not sure why any of this is anti-conservative, ... they doth protest too much.
On the other hand, there are some holes in the story.
Let's start with the more technical. In one scene, Wall-E is blasted off to space stuck on the outside of a massive rocket. Very cute scene, except that it is very unlikely that this would be possible. Wouldn't Wall-E, a garbage disposal robot, be incinerated in the intense heat generated when travelling at the incredible speeds of escape velocity?
In another scene, Wall-E is blasted into space with a small plant. He holds the plant out in the vacuum of space, and the plant survives the experience. But, given how long the plant was in a vacuum of space, is that likely?
More distressing were the fat human slobs, who are unable to get themselves upright in the micro-gravity of the outer space spaceship without assistance from external props, yet, at the end of the movie have no problem standing on Earth, where gravity would surely be many many times more than the simulated gravity of space. How did they suddenly convert their atrophied muscles to such strength in such a short time?
However, we can probably come up with perfectly reasonable explanations to all these. After all, that these weren't explained in the movie doesn't mean that we can't invent ways to explain them.
What I had more trouble with, was one of the fundamental premises of the movie - that consumerism would lead to mindless sloth and obesity. Some of us may have been misled by the increasing girths of Americans and have started to believe that this bleak future is likely. Unfortunately, this view fails to recognize a key aspect of human nature - sexual desire.
While some Americans have become fatter, it is also clear that our definition of beauty has become more exacting. Years ago, Marilyn Monroe was considered a svelte lithesome beauty. Today, she'd be considered fat. Sixty-year-olds now aim to reverse aging and look in their mid-30s, and many succeed. Skin must appear unblemished and unmarked. Hair must be perfect. And, being slim is no longer enough, it must be accompanied by pronounced abs.
All this is not surprising. In fact, as we have more means and more leisure, we try to indulge our more basic emotions such as lust and sexual competition by using those means and that leisure to make ourselves prettier. How then, does Wall-E, expect us to believe that consumerism and corporate sales pitches could replace the basic sexual desire. If we all had some much leisure and so much free time, wouldn't some, if not all of us be busy indulging our sexual fantasies by become the models of beauty that we dream of?
Wall-E is a fantasy in more ways than one. It was enjoyable ... just don't over think it.
Before I go on, let me warn you that what is about to follow may contain some spoilers.
On one level, Wall-E is a charming love story. It is a fairytale, where love is predicated on mutual companionship and friendship that can never be consummated, and is not based on physical attraction. It is a modern rendition of the type of fairytale that was the hallmark of Disney movies in Walt Disney's lifetime.
Wall-E has invited the ire of many conservatives for its vision of a bleak world, where consumerism has reduced human beings to bloated fat beings confined to their couches, so engrossed in their catered world of pleasure on demand that they are not even aware of the environment around them. Earth has been reduced to a massive abandoned garbage dump. Not sure why any of this is anti-conservative, ... they doth protest too much.
On the other hand, there are some holes in the story.
Let's start with the more technical. In one scene, Wall-E is blasted off to space stuck on the outside of a massive rocket. Very cute scene, except that it is very unlikely that this would be possible. Wouldn't Wall-E, a garbage disposal robot, be incinerated in the intense heat generated when travelling at the incredible speeds of escape velocity?
In another scene, Wall-E is blasted into space with a small plant. He holds the plant out in the vacuum of space, and the plant survives the experience. But, given how long the plant was in a vacuum of space, is that likely?
More distressing were the fat human slobs, who are unable to get themselves upright in the micro-gravity of the outer space spaceship without assistance from external props, yet, at the end of the movie have no problem standing on Earth, where gravity would surely be many many times more than the simulated gravity of space. How did they suddenly convert their atrophied muscles to such strength in such a short time?
However, we can probably come up with perfectly reasonable explanations to all these. After all, that these weren't explained in the movie doesn't mean that we can't invent ways to explain them.
What I had more trouble with, was one of the fundamental premises of the movie - that consumerism would lead to mindless sloth and obesity. Some of us may have been misled by the increasing girths of Americans and have started to believe that this bleak future is likely. Unfortunately, this view fails to recognize a key aspect of human nature - sexual desire.
While some Americans have become fatter, it is also clear that our definition of beauty has become more exacting. Years ago, Marilyn Monroe was considered a svelte lithesome beauty. Today, she'd be considered fat. Sixty-year-olds now aim to reverse aging and look in their mid-30s, and many succeed. Skin must appear unblemished and unmarked. Hair must be perfect. And, being slim is no longer enough, it must be accompanied by pronounced abs.
All this is not surprising. In fact, as we have more means and more leisure, we try to indulge our more basic emotions such as lust and sexual competition by using those means and that leisure to make ourselves prettier. How then, does Wall-E, expect us to believe that consumerism and corporate sales pitches could replace the basic sexual desire. If we all had some much leisure and so much free time, wouldn't some, if not all of us be busy indulging our sexual fantasies by become the models of beauty that we dream of?
Wall-E is a fantasy in more ways than one. It was enjoyable ... just don't over think it.
Old and new ...
I had encountered neither the old nor the new version of Battlestar Galactica until recently. My first attempt at watching a few episodes of the more recent version on Sci Fi channel proved very disappointing. I started in the middle of the third season, which made it tough. There were too many characters, very complex relationships, and many undercurrents that were fairly difficult to follow without knowledge of the back story. It struck me as dull and unnecessarily opaque.
Then, a few months later, on a recommendation from a friend, I decided to try again, only this time I began with the mini series, and then watched the episodes in order. They were fantastic. I was blown away. It was one of the best dramas of any genre I had ever watched on TV (although, I still found the third season pretty weak.)
However, before we start discussing the newer versions, let me turn to the classic 1978 version.
Intrigued by your reference to the older version of the Battlestar Galactica I found the episodes online and have begun watching them. I have to say, having watched the new version, watching the old version is tough and I haven't got through them all. However, I have got over the hump of expecting the characters and the production quality to be like the more recent version, and am beginning to get more interested. The two versions have a lot of similarities, but its the differences that are more interesting.
The most immediately noticeable difference between the two versions is the look: the sets and costumes. The classic version has spaceships that are clean and unblemished by the scars of battle, with plush opulent interiors reminiscent of Star Trek, and designs reminiscent of Star Wars. The colorful uniforms are straight out of Star Trek. In contrast, the new version is more gritty and somewhat more like a war movie than a Star Trek episode, perhaps more influenced by Aliens.
The other very obvious difference is the extensive use of stereotypes in the classic version. The classic version has the obligatory black surrogate (Colobel Tigh) who, of course is "good" and not really conflicted about his decisions. Colonel Tigh in the new version is a alcoholic with issues who is anything but loveable. In the classic version, children, robot dogs and civilians accompany the military on missions. In the new version, the world is at war, and children and very largely civilians are kept out of the military. The classic version has loads of pretty women on deck, and at least in the first few episodes, they seem to hold more secondary roles. The newer version has many attractive women too, but they hold posts of power and leadership, for instance, Starbuck and President Roslin. In the classic version, Starbuck (played by Dirk Benedict) is a charming womanizing cad, not unlike his later role as Lt. Templeton Peck in the "A Team".
Thankfully, these stereotypes have not made their way to the new version.
The storyline in the classic version is somewhat weak, to say the least. Humanity has almost been decimated, but no one seems very distraught. Starbuck is still chasing every girl he can find, and while the dialogue between Adama and others expresses grief. nothing else does - not the sets, the ships, the music, or the expressions or behavior of the characters. It all seems very flippant.
The storylines of the two are superficially similar. The differences though are intriguing?
The classic version is clearly Earth centric. The connection to Earth is emphatically called out in the introductory voiceover. In the classic version, there are other aliens apart from humans in this universe, yet it is the humans that the Cylons set out to exterminate, and the other aliens are largely supporting players. This may be explained later in the series, but not in the episodes I've watched so far. In this universe, Cylons are the creations of a forgotten race of reptilian creatures who are long extinct, and not the creations of man. All this reeks of a storyline that is strongly rooted in the '60s and '70s. A belief that humans are a superior race set apart by our humanity and decency, somewhat like the underlying theme of Star Trek. Contrast this with the humans of the new version, who create the Cylons and then are savaged by their own creations for their alleged hypocrisy and violence.
In the classic version, the Cylons trick the humans by tempting the humans with peace but then decimating the humans while their guard was down. The politicians in the classic version are corrupt, self aggrandizing, weak and naive. In contrast, the new version the Cylons take advantage of a complacency instilled by peace, and the leaders who emerge from the devastation are ordinary people who become extraordinary leaders faced with extraordinary times.
As I watched these contrasting episodes, I wondered how much of these were a reflection of the times. Is the classic version a direct or indirect statement on the Cold War, with its criticism of the "peace lovers" akin to a similar criticism of those who wanted to negotiate with the Soviets? In the classic version, warriors are celebrated and the peace lovers are hypocritical, naive and corrupt. In contrast, the new version is about failing to learn the lessons of war, of letting one's guard down, of being unprepared for a new form of attack when people least suspected.
Sounds familiar? The Cylons and humans, in the new version, cling to their religion and its prophecies as a way to salvation, and at times seems to reveal miracles, yet that religion also leads them to war and devastation. In the new version, people fight viciously for survival, yet there is a weary hunger for peace. War is no longer fun, victory no longer painless. Is the transformation of this attitude a reaction to the Iraq war and a consequential re-examination of the role of war? Or is it just coincidence?
Thoughts?
Then, a few months later, on a recommendation from a friend, I decided to try again, only this time I began with the mini series, and then watched the episodes in order. They were fantastic. I was blown away. It was one of the best dramas of any genre I had ever watched on TV (although, I still found the third season pretty weak.)
However, before we start discussing the newer versions, let me turn to the classic 1978 version.
Intrigued by your reference to the older version of the Battlestar Galactica I found the episodes online and have begun watching them. I have to say, having watched the new version, watching the old version is tough and I haven't got through them all. However, I have got over the hump of expecting the characters and the production quality to be like the more recent version, and am beginning to get more interested. The two versions have a lot of similarities, but its the differences that are more interesting.
The most immediately noticeable difference between the two versions is the look: the sets and costumes. The classic version has spaceships that are clean and unblemished by the scars of battle, with plush opulent interiors reminiscent of Star Trek, and designs reminiscent of Star Wars. The colorful uniforms are straight out of Star Trek. In contrast, the new version is more gritty and somewhat more like a war movie than a Star Trek episode, perhaps more influenced by Aliens.
The other very obvious difference is the extensive use of stereotypes in the classic version. The classic version has the obligatory black surrogate (Colobel Tigh) who, of course is "good" and not really conflicted about his decisions. Colonel Tigh in the new version is a alcoholic with issues who is anything but loveable. In the classic version, children, robot dogs and civilians accompany the military on missions. In the new version, the world is at war, and children and very largely civilians are kept out of the military. The classic version has loads of pretty women on deck, and at least in the first few episodes, they seem to hold more secondary roles. The newer version has many attractive women too, but they hold posts of power and leadership, for instance, Starbuck and President Roslin. In the classic version, Starbuck (played by Dirk Benedict) is a charming womanizing cad, not unlike his later role as Lt. Templeton Peck in the "A Team".
Thankfully, these stereotypes have not made their way to the new version.
The storyline in the classic version is somewhat weak, to say the least. Humanity has almost been decimated, but no one seems very distraught. Starbuck is still chasing every girl he can find, and while the dialogue between Adama and others expresses grief. nothing else does - not the sets, the ships, the music, or the expressions or behavior of the characters. It all seems very flippant.
The storylines of the two are superficially similar. The differences though are intriguing?
The classic version is clearly Earth centric. The connection to Earth is emphatically called out in the introductory voiceover. In the classic version, there are other aliens apart from humans in this universe, yet it is the humans that the Cylons set out to exterminate, and the other aliens are largely supporting players. This may be explained later in the series, but not in the episodes I've watched so far. In this universe, Cylons are the creations of a forgotten race of reptilian creatures who are long extinct, and not the creations of man. All this reeks of a storyline that is strongly rooted in the '60s and '70s. A belief that humans are a superior race set apart by our humanity and decency, somewhat like the underlying theme of Star Trek. Contrast this with the humans of the new version, who create the Cylons and then are savaged by their own creations for their alleged hypocrisy and violence.
In the classic version, the Cylons trick the humans by tempting the humans with peace but then decimating the humans while their guard was down. The politicians in the classic version are corrupt, self aggrandizing, weak and naive. In contrast, the new version the Cylons take advantage of a complacency instilled by peace, and the leaders who emerge from the devastation are ordinary people who become extraordinary leaders faced with extraordinary times.
As I watched these contrasting episodes, I wondered how much of these were a reflection of the times. Is the classic version a direct or indirect statement on the Cold War, with its criticism of the "peace lovers" akin to a similar criticism of those who wanted to negotiate with the Soviets? In the classic version, warriors are celebrated and the peace lovers are hypocritical, naive and corrupt. In contrast, the new version is about failing to learn the lessons of war, of letting one's guard down, of being unprepared for a new form of attack when people least suspected.
Sounds familiar? The Cylons and humans, in the new version, cling to their religion and its prophecies as a way to salvation, and at times seems to reveal miracles, yet that religion also leads them to war and devastation. In the new version, people fight viciously for survival, yet there is a weary hunger for peace. War is no longer fun, victory no longer painless. Is the transformation of this attitude a reaction to the Iraq war and a consequential re-examination of the role of war? Or is it just coincidence?
Thoughts?
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
The Flophouse Roundtable, Inaugural Congress
The chairman brings this inaugural congress of the Flophouse Roundtable to order.
First agendum: Battlestar Galactica.
Chairman's report:
I'm finding it difficult to begin a conversation regarding the current Battlestar Galactica series without going back to the original. And the circumstances of the original seem to require me to go even further back ... all the way to 1966 ... years before my birth.
Sci fi fans know that 1966 was the year that Star Trek began. When I was a kid in the early 1970s, Star Trek was a huge part of the culture of young nerds. We lived and breathed Star Trek. There was a problem, though. It was no longer being made. And, it had already gone through its initial run of syndication, so it was actually difficult to catch on television. Our city didn't have an "independent" television station, so we had to try to tune in a distant one in a bigger city. Mostly we had to make do with things like Space: 1999 and The Six-Million Dollar Man, which somehow failed to grasp the operatic potential of science fiction fantasy.
So, we were hungry for sci fi. Then, in the summer of 1977, we left for a two-month long sojourn in India. And when I returned ... The world had changed.
I was greeted with "How many times have you seen Star Wars?"
First of all, I had no idea what Star Wars was. Second, How many times? I had never conceived of, having once seen a movie in a theatre, going to see it again. Surely it's something my parents would consider wasteful. But every day on the playground, there were new reports of someone having seen this movie 10 times, 15 times, 30 times!
Star Wars triggered a new age of science fiction, and one of the followers in that wave was Battlestar Galactica. Actually, as I remember it, Galactica appeared first as a new series of toys in the Sears Roebuck catalogue. I recall thinking that the spaceships were better looking than the ones in Star Wars. After many weeks and months of expectation, Galactica premiered ...
Almost.
The three-hour pilot was interrupted by President Carter's "malaise" speech. Not an auspicious beginning.
Galactica proved to be one of the most expensive television shows to prove up to that point, but it appealed largely to children, and thus didn't last more than a season. For years after its cancellation, it was my favorite show ever.
A brief sequel, Galactica 1980, was so horrible, that it made more keen the pain of the absence of the original.
Over the years, there was occasional talk of a revival, but nothing ever came of it, so its actual revival in 2003 was very unexpected. The quality of the show was even more unexpected.
I suppose that's a good place to begin the meeting.
The chair recognizes the comptroller, Mr. Reginald Santo Domingo.
First agendum: Battlestar Galactica.
Chairman's report:
I'm finding it difficult to begin a conversation regarding the current Battlestar Galactica series without going back to the original. And the circumstances of the original seem to require me to go even further back ... all the way to 1966 ... years before my birth.
Sci fi fans know that 1966 was the year that Star Trek began. When I was a kid in the early 1970s, Star Trek was a huge part of the culture of young nerds. We lived and breathed Star Trek. There was a problem, though. It was no longer being made. And, it had already gone through its initial run of syndication, so it was actually difficult to catch on television. Our city didn't have an "independent" television station, so we had to try to tune in a distant one in a bigger city. Mostly we had to make do with things like Space: 1999 and The Six-Million Dollar Man, which somehow failed to grasp the operatic potential of science fiction fantasy.
So, we were hungry for sci fi. Then, in the summer of 1977, we left for a two-month long sojourn in India. And when I returned ... The world had changed.
I was greeted with "How many times have you seen Star Wars?"
First of all, I had no idea what Star Wars was. Second, How many times? I had never conceived of, having once seen a movie in a theatre, going to see it again. Surely it's something my parents would consider wasteful. But every day on the playground, there were new reports of someone having seen this movie 10 times, 15 times, 30 times!
Star Wars triggered a new age of science fiction, and one of the followers in that wave was Battlestar Galactica. Actually, as I remember it, Galactica appeared first as a new series of toys in the Sears Roebuck catalogue. I recall thinking that the spaceships were better looking than the ones in Star Wars. After many weeks and months of expectation, Galactica premiered ...
Almost.
The three-hour pilot was interrupted by President Carter's "malaise" speech. Not an auspicious beginning.
Galactica proved to be one of the most expensive television shows to prove up to that point, but it appealed largely to children, and thus didn't last more than a season. For years after its cancellation, it was my favorite show ever.
A brief sequel, Galactica 1980, was so horrible, that it made more keen the pain of the absence of the original.
Over the years, there was occasional talk of a revival, but nothing ever came of it, so its actual revival in 2003 was very unexpected. The quality of the show was even more unexpected.
I suppose that's a good place to begin the meeting.
The chair recognizes the comptroller, Mr. Reginald Santo Domingo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)