Hitting the Wall With "Homeland"

This is my second attempt to start watching "Homeland," the much awarded, much praised Showtime drama that became a great big deal when it premiered two years ago. The first time around, I watched the free episode that was released when the show first premiered. Not impressed, I didn't give it another thought until all the accolades started rolling in and I started getting recommendations from friends. This time around, I got through another episode, but I still have no desire to go any further. To put it bluntly, the show bothers me on several levels.

Damian Lewis stars as Sergeant Nicholas Brody, a Marine who was held captive by Al Qaeda for eight years before being rescued and returned to the United States. Worried that Brody might have been compromised during his time as a POW, a CIA intelligence officer, Carrie Mathison (Claire Danes) begins a one-woman campaign to watch his every move with the help of the CIA's surveillance equipment. She spends much of the first two episodes installing and then utilizing all manner of hidden cameras and microphones to spy on Brody, his wife Jessica (Morena Baccarin), and their two children. When she's not doing that, she's busy trying to justify her actions and the intense level fo scrutiny to her boss, David Estes (David Harewood) and her mentor Saul Berenson (Mandy Patinkin). Carrie's ultimate goal is to track down the terrorist Abu Nazir (Navid Negahban), who Brody was in contact with during his imprisonment.

I don't have an issue with the basics of this premise. The subject matter is timely and the ideas are intriguing. However, I have no patience with the typical, unrealistic complications that have been included to add more drama. It's not enough that Carrie is an underdog at the CIA, obsessing over a threat that only she seems to believe is there. No, she has to be bipolar and emotionally unstable too, constantly on the verge of a mental breakdown. Sure, it's believable that Jessica Brody would have had an affair that now has to be kept under wraps since her husband has returned from the dead. But did the affair have to be with his very best friend Captain Faber (Diego Klattenhoff)? I found it difficult to watch these episodes of "Homeland" and not see all the seams and the structuring, all the little things designed to make the show more tense and exciting, while at the same time making it feel like generic Hollywood product, completely undermining its believability.

I think part of the problem is that I know that this isn't how intelligence gathering really works, and it's jarring to see the procedures being flaunted so flagrantly left and right. I have this problem with police and lawyer shows too, though my brain has learned to treat them as fantasy after years and years of exposure. "Homeland," however, makes many overtures toward being more realistic than other spy media, but it doesn't make quite enough of them. When I'm watching it, I'm stuck in this odd mental place between the starkly candid "Zero Dark Thirty" and the obviously fantastical James Bond movies, not clear on how much real world logic is applicable to the events I'm seeing unfold. The universe seems similar to the dodgy one that "24" used to inhabit, with more nudity and profanity because this is a premium cable show. I don't think the adult content helps much. It just makes the whole story feel more tawdry and salacious.

I can see how "Homeland" could get much, much better, and I'm sure that it does eventually. However, I find myself totally disinterested in what it's shaping up to be. To me, "Homeland" looks like another paranoid, gung-ho military fantasy about chasing down mysterious terrorist threats and unraveling plots set in motion by evil foreigners - and like so many other films and television shows in the same vein, it feels exploitative, reductive, fear-mongering, xenophobic, and downright distasteful at times. I find it very hard to get any entertainment value out of this as a result. There's too much focus on visceral thrills and emotional turmoil, to the point where the elevated tensions feel very artificial and contrived. Playing up and twisting real-world fears about terrorism like this makes me extremely uncomfortable, especially where there's no grounding context to speak of, and the subject matter is such sensitive stuff. I'm guessing the story will get more nuanced, but the terrible old cliches are killing it right now.

What's worse, I don't find a single character likeable or intriguing enough to want to see more of. Sure, I like all the actors involved here, and I'm thrilled for Claire Danes that she got to sink her teeth into such a substantial role at last. She's great as Carrie Mathison. However, I have no interest in watching Carrie Mathison continue to obsess about Sergeant Brody. I don't care what happens to him or his wife or the kids who look nothing like their mother. The only character I find sympathetic is one of Carrie's intelligence assets, who is almost certainly going to get herself killed off soon in a way that imparts the maximum amount of trauma and guilt on Carrie. And you know what? I don't particularly want to watch that happen. Maybe after I finish off a few more shows and I'm in the mood for something darker I can try to suck it up and tackle "Homeland" again.

But not today.
---

Read More

Technology Marches On

Right now, I'm typing out this post using a new version of Gmail that requires that I open a new browser window if I don't want to draft a new message in a cramped text box that's squashed into the right half of my screen. I juggle enough different windows and tabs at one time that I really don't want to deal with another one, but I can't find anything in the settings that would restore the prior one-window method. I liked drafting in Gmail because I got to write and keep an eye on my inbox at the same time. Now, I might as well be using Google Docs or a separate word processing program. There wasn't much warning that this change was going to happen in Gmail, and it's just the first of a string of coming changes to the internet services and programs that I've grown to depend on.

In the next few months, we're going to lose Google Reader, which I was using as my primary aggregator for multiple entertainment news RSS feeds and podcasts, and the current version of Tweetdeck, which I use to update my Twitter feed. Tweetdeck was really just a quick fix for a problem I was having with the Twitter web interface, and not actually more convenient for me, so this could be a good thing, providing the impetus for me to get the issue sorted out for good. I'm going to miss Reader much more, since it is the most popular and most useful newsreader out there. There's some comfort in knowing there are a lot of other people in the same boat as I am. Right after Reader's impending retirement was announced, there was a flood of people on Reddit asking for recommendations for replacements. In both cases it's not going to take much effort to acclimate myself to a new or modified service, but it's still hard to shake the sense of loss, because I spent so much time using both, and I'd gotten very familiar with them.

I've always been something of a late adopter - I managed to skip Windows Vista entirely by holding out with XP until Windows 7 came along. My current laptop is nearly six years old, and I don't own a smartphone, tablet, or anything that supports an app. I'll probably be replacing the laptop soon with a newer model, not because I'm unhappy with its performance, but because you can't just go an buy a brand new 2007 laptop. There are already parts of the internet my processor and graphics card are having a hard time keeping up with, and I've been warned that eventually most of the online services that I use aren't going to run as well with my old, outdated machine as they keep getting upgraded and updated. Of course I've seen the benefits of many of these improvements over the years, but sometimes it feels like I'm running a Red Queen's race. Video platforms continue to be the bane of my existence. I spent a good chunk of yesterday evening updating Java and Adobe Shockwhatever, trying to get an old Stanley Kubrick supercut to play properly. And who knows what kind of horror will be unleashed when Netflix switches over to HTML5.

I've been through this familiar situation enough times before that I know that I'm really just grumbling over change in general. There's nothing I can do about the changes to my online services in the same way that I can't do anything about the volatile gas prices or the end of Saturday mail services. The online world is actually better in many ways because there are a lot of options to conduct basic activities, lots of different providers (except for internet service itself), and a lot of sympathy towards late adopters. If I really wanted to, I could hold out with my current laptop for a very long time. I finally gave up on Windows XP back in 2007, but Microsoft is still supporting the operating system until next year. I might just stick to Windows 7 for a while, considering what I've been hearing about Windows 8, and wait until 9 or 10 roll around.

But first things first. I need a new RSS reader, hopefully one that will let me download audio content directly. And I might just give up Tweetdeck entirely and update directly through the Twitter site, or see if there's another third party services that's a little more user friendly. I need my Gmail account, but I might start drafting blog posts in what used to be my Hotmail account, which recently mysteriously transmogrified into this thing called Microsoft Outlook. I can't really tell the difference between them functionally, so no complaints. The transition was handled so well that it took me a few weeks to realize that I was actually using a different service.

Sometimes technology marches on, and sometimes it can pull a fast one on you.
---

Read More

Doom Doom Doom

And now ladies and gentlemen, The Doom Song.

Doom doom doom doomy doom doom doom DOOM DOOM DOOM dooooom doom doom da doom da doom doom doom doo doom doo doom DA DOOM! DA DOOM! Doom doom doom. Doom doom doom! Doomy doomie doomey doo-wah doom! Doom doom doom, doom dee doom dee doom doom doom. Dum dum dum DOOM! Doom doom doom, doo doo doom doom doom. Da doom, da doom DOOM DOOM DOOM DA DA DOOM! DOOOOOOM!

Dee dah DOOM! Da Da DOOM! DOOM doom doom doom, DOOM doom doom doom, DOOM doom doom doom, DOOM doom doom doom, Da da DOOM da DOOM! Dooom doooooom doooooom dooooom, DOOM DOOM (da-doom doom doom). DOOM DOOM DOOM dooooom doom doom da doom da doom doom doom doo doom doo doom DA DOOM! DA DOOM! DOOM DOOM DOOM dooooom doom doom da doom da doom doom doom doo doom doo doom DA DOOM! DA DOOM! DOOM DOOM DOOM dooooom doom doom da doom da doom doom doom doo doom doo doom DA DOOM! DA DOOM! DOOM DOOM DOOM dooooom doom doom da doom da doom doom doom doo doom doo doom DA DOOM! DA DOOM! Doomerino, Doomeransky, Doomie-oomie-oomie-oooooom! DOOM dah doom dah doom doom doom doom DOOOOOOM! Doom!

Doom doom doomdoom DOOMDOOM doom doom doomdoomdoom doom doom DOOMDOOMDOOM doom doom doom doomdoom doom doom dee deed da DOOOM DOOOM DOOOM! DOOM DOOM DOOM dooooom doom doom da doom da doom doom doom doo doom doo doom DA DOOM! DA DOOM! Doom doom doom, doom dee doom dee doom doom doom. Dum dum dum DOOM! Doom doom doom, doom dee doom dee doom doom doom. Dum dum dum DOOM! Doom doom doom, doom dee doom dee doom doom doom. Dum dum dum DOOM! DOO-WAH-DOOOMIE DOOMIE DUM DIDDIE DOOM!

Doom doom doo-da-doom, doom doom doo-da-doom, doom doom doo-da-doom, DOOM! Doom doom da doom dooooom, doom doom da doom dooooom, doom doom doom doomy doomy doom DOOM doom DOOOOM! Doom doom doom DOOM da-doom doom DOOM do-doom doom DOOM! Doom doom doom DOOM da-da-doom DOOM, da-da DOOM. DOOM da-da-doom DOOM, da-da DOOM da-da-DOOM! DOOM DOOMIE DOOM DOOM. Doom doomie-doom-doom. Doom doom doom DOOM doom, DOO-DOOM DOO-DOOOM! Doom doom doom DOOM! DOOM! DOOM! DOOM! DOOM! DOOMDOOMDOOMDOOM!

Dooom! Dooom! Doomy doomy doomydoomy, DOOM doom doom doomy! Doom dum doom dum doomy doom doom. Da-doomie doomie doom doom doom. Doomie! Doomie! Doom doom doom dee doomie. Doomdoom doomdoom, doom doom doo doom doom doom. Dooooom doom doom da doom da doom doom doom doo doom doo doom. Dooooooooom doom doom da doom da doom doom doom doo doom doo doom. Doom doom doom, doom dee doom dee doom doom doom. Doom doom doom, doom dee dee dee doom doom doom. La la la doom. FA LA LA LA LA LA DOOOM, DOOOM DOOOOOOM!

Doom doom doom doom doom, doom doom do DOOM, DOOOM doom do-doom, DOOM do-doom doom doooom, doom doom dooom, do-do-DOOOM! Doom doom doo doom doom. DOOMY-DOOMY-DOOM, doom do do DOOM. Do do DOOM, doomy-doomy-doomy, Doom doom doom.

Doom da-doom.


THE END

Read More

This Week in Rumor Control

As if we didn't have enough Disney-related rumors going around, yesterday a Colombian radio personality claimed that PIXAR was going ahead with a fourth "Toy Story" movie, to be released in 2015, and had already gotten Tom Hanks and other stars to agree to reprise their roles. None of the usual media news sources backed them up, and frankly anybody who was remotely familiar with PIXAR recognized right away that this was probably not reliable information. There is an untitled PIXAR movie on the slate for November of 2015, and Tom Hanks has claimed that "Toy Story 4" is in development, but there have been just as many denials that PIXAR is going forward with another sequel. Now, it's not too unlikely that PIXAR is considering giving Woody and his friends another movie. A Halloween special featuring the characters is in the works, and several shorts have produced. I caught the one with Rex and the bath toys at a Disney store over the weekend. However, nothing is remotely official yet.

Of course, that didn't stop bloggers and smaller sites from spreading the rumor around, and getting the internet worked up into a frenzy. The discussion went from questioning the news sources to talking about potential ideas for a new sequel to complaining about how PIXAR had jumped the shark by indulging in this kind of sequelitis very quickly. By the time the inevitable denial articles came around from sites like IGN and Ain’t it Cool News, the "Toy Story 4" rumors had already been digested and debated and absorbed like it was a real piece of news. The same thing happened with the rumor that Harrison Ford was returning as Han Solo to the "Star Wars" franchise a few days ago. That one came from a more reputable source, a Fox News Latino correspondent, and was reported by many legitimate news outlets, but ultimately there was no concrete evidence that any of it was true, just like the rumors about the possible "Star Wars" spinoffs about Yoda and Boba Fett and the young Han Solo that were running wild last week.

Entertainment news runs by different rules than regular news. It's a gossip-based economy, where there are almost no bad consequences for making up completely false claims and spreading around bad information. Being first to break this kind of news is much more important than getting the details right. The studios allow them to proliferate because they're fairly harmless. Rumors can even help gauge the public's reaction to certain ideas and possibilities, which is why some suggested that the new "Toy Story 4" rumors might have been planted on purpose, to see how people would react. If this happened with hard news, there would be scandals and backlash and recriminations. Rumors related to the business side of Hollywood are treated much more carefully, because there are hard consequences to getting that kind of information wrong. However, conjecture about projects in development, or who might be attached to play which role, rarely has so much impact, so there's more permissiveness.

I find this attitude a real a pain in the neck, personally. Sure, sometimes the rumors are fun on a slow news day, but they can also be such distracting, annoying, and kind of disheartening. I'm not going to put down anyone for getting excited over a possible "Toy Story 4," but this was such a bad rumor to begin with. A news item from Colombia based on the word of unnamed sources? Why would anyone believe this for a second? Why would countless bloggers and websites pass this around without waiting for any kind of confirmation? Is there any degree of skepticism at all in this process? Geographically I don't live too far from the PIXAR studios in Emeryville. I could know somebody who knows somebody who's working on the development of this new sequel. I could make up just about anything I want, let it loose on Twitter, and cause a media storm of similar proportions. I could say Brad Bird has been working on "The Incredibles 2" all this time, alongside "Tomorrowland," and offer no proof at all, and someone out there would believe me.

Let's just be clear that the preceding paragraph is a total hypothetical, before some data-scraper program gets too excited. Okay?

Sigh. I don't mean to get all worked up, but the rumor mill can be really frustrating sometimes. I particularly dislike that it tends to drown out smaller, but more concrete media news items that I find much more interesting. On the animation front, Dreamworks' "Peabody and Mr. Sherman" recently got pushed back to 2014, and "Me and My Shadow" was pulled from their slate, preceding a potential round of layoffs. And we just got a new batch of promotional material for "Ender's Game" - you know, that movie that Harrison Ford is actually appearing in this November. It's nothing as big or exciting as the recent rumors, but at least these stories are actually real.
---

Read More

Onboard the Disney-Star Wars-Marvel Crazy Train

When J.J. Abrams was announced as the director of the next "Star Wars," there was a nice sense of relief. Finally the fanboys could stop speculating and we would get a break from some of the wilder "Star Wars" rumors that were circulating. But this week, Harry Knowles went and started up the rumors about a possible Yoda spin-off movie. We've known for a while that Disney was considering more stand-alone "Star Wars" films apart from the upcoming trilogy, but the newest round of conjecture got Disney CEO Bob Iger to confirm that there was active development going on, and that writers Lawrence Kasdan and Simon Kinberg were working on them. Today there were more rumors that stand-alone movies about Boba Fett and the young Han Solo were in the works, according to Entertainment Weekly.

Meanwhile, over at Marvel, their cinematic universe is expanding at a furious rate. The post-"Avengers" "Phase Two" films are all pretty much locked. Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America are getting their new sequels, and "Guardians of the Galaxy" just landed a leading man. These will lead up to "Avengers 2" in 2015. Most of the current speculation and rumor mongering has been about "Phase Three," which currently has only one confirmed project: Edgar Wright's long-awaited "Ant-Man." "Doctor Strange" is a major candidate to get his own movie after that. This week, there's been a lot of buzz about the possibility of a new "Hulk" movie, possibly an adaptation of the beloved comics storyline "Planet Hulk." There's already a furious debate going on in various corners of the internet about potential directors.

Since the success of "The Avengers" and the conclusion of "Harry Potter," planning out these massive, multi-film series years and years in advance has become the new normal. Nobody's worried about that first 2015 "Star Wars" film being a flop, or the potential failure of an "Avengers 2," which might shutter all the follow-up films, because those properties are so well insulated by their brands. Barring monumental catastrophes, we're going to have at least eleven connected Marvel films by the time we're done with Phase Two in 2015, and potentially many, many more if Marvel can manage the tricky transitions to new characters and the inevitable replacement of aging actors. And if the "Star Wars" prequels have taught us anything, it's that fans will show up to any "Star Wars" movie, hoping it will live up to the originals, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. That should get Disney through at least three new "Star Wars" films, even if they turn out to be terrible. However, J.J. Abrams is not in the habit of making terrible films, so I think it's safe to push that number up to four or five.

And now the fan speculation is free to get weirder and wilder than it ever has before. For years, "Star Wars" fans have idolized the bounty hunter Boba Fett, a minor villain in the original trilogy. Now there's a pretty distinct possibility that the powers-that-be are considering giving him his own spin-off movie. Who could be next? Mace Windu? Jabba the Hut? Admiral Ackbar? And if the fairly obscure Marvel superhero Ant-Man can have his own feature, why not Luke Cage? Or Wasp? Or the Power Pack? The ideas that would have been dismissed as wild fantasizing a few years ago have all suddenly become much more plausible. It's really tempting to want to join in the fun and think about the possibilities of more daring storylines and crazy cross-overs. Why not Avengers vs. X-men? Or if Warners really gets desperate a few years down the line, why not Avengers vs. Justice League? You could do a whole trilogy on that one alone.

However, I'm trying my best not to get carried away. Even though it looks like the sky's the limit right now for these franchises, the risks are still considerable. For Marvel, the longer the series goes on, the more difficult it is for newcomers to find an entry point, and tackling the less popular, more fringe characters means the later films may grow increasingly niche. Also, with two Marvel films being released each year for the next three years, I worry that we're going to hit a saturation point eventually. With "Star Wars," it's even harder to predict what's going to happen. The earliest we'll see the next film is 2015, and how well it does is going to determine how risky the other films are going to get. It's not easy to get these big action franchises off the ground, and Disney has stumbled multiple times trying to launch new ones - most recently with "John Carter" - and ended up buying its way into "Star Wars" and the Marvel Universe.

There's no question that Disney has the ambition, but living up to those ambitions is another matter entirely. Right now, I'm more interested with what's going on with the films already pretty far along in the pipeline. Is swapping out Kenneth Branagh and Joe Johnston for the much less experienced Alan Taylor and the Russo brothers as directors going to hurt the next Thor and Captain America films? And how on earth are they going to pull off something as mad as "Guardians of the Galaxy"? As for "Star Wars," J.J. Abrams should do a competent job, though the idea of cross-contamination with the "Star Trek" universe is a concern. Take heed from one of the rare fans who enjoys both equally - these are universes you do not want colliding. And then there's Abrams' penchant for trying to do everything. The latest is that he's apparently been talking to Valve about a possible "Half-Life" or "Portal" movie on top of everything else.

Yeah, these franchises are going to be crazy enough enough without all the speculation. Hang on tight everybody.
---

Read More

Who Should Direct "Cinderella"?

Yesterday brought the announcement that Mark Romanek had dropped out of Disney's new "Cinderella" adaptation, the one where Cate Blanchett is playing the evil stepmother. Mark Romanek previously directed "Never Let Me Go" and "One Hour Photo," as well as several well-regarded music videos, and is known for his strong visual style and edgy aesthetic bent. It's no mystery why Disney would want to work with him. However, the director's vision was apparently darker than what Disney had in mind, and the general reaction of most observers has been, well, of course it was. I think I'm in the minority in that I'm genuinely disappointed that Disney and Romanek couldn't come to terms. I wanted to see what that "Cinderella" would have looked like. Pairing up a more artistically daring director with mainstream material can yield some interesting results. Sure, Tarsem Singh's "Mirror, Mirror" was pretty weightless fluff, but it was more visually interesting and thematically sound than that other Snow White movie that came out last year. And I continue ot defend Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" for the voluptuous art design at least.

Directors have a tendency to be pigeonholed more than anyone likes to admit, and much more in modern times than they were in the old days. It used to be that directors had their specialties, but it wasn't that odd to find John Ford directing a comedy or Howard Hawks directing a musical. I've often wondered what would happen if some of our celebrated directors of action movies and heavy dramas had to work with something a little lighter and frillier and more... Disney. So as the Mouse House searches for someone to replace Romamek, I've been pondering over what "Cinderella" might look like if some more unorthodox names were under consideration:

Wes Anderson's Cinderella - Stars Kara Hayward as Cindy, an awkward preteen with a penchant for David Bowie songs, sweater vests, and philately. In order to spend time with her one true love, Fred Charming, during her spring break, she has to infiltrate his private school in the guise of a French foreign exchange student. One thing leads to another, and Cindy ends up competing in a junior jitterbug dance competition against Fred. Angelica Houston plays the stepmother, a complicated soul, whose meanness is really only a defense mechanism.

Christopher Nolan's Cinderella - Stars Ellen Page as Alice Rendl, a brilliant young software designer caught in a web of corporate espionage and intrigue. Joan Allen plays the stepmother, the icy CFO of a major international conglomerate that is trying to get their hands on a new virtual reality program, "Glass Slipper," that has fallen into Alice's lap. Can she unlock its secrets and uncover the secret identity of the hacker Charming before the police come to arrest her at midnight? Will she finally be able to face reality? What is reality?

David Lynch's Cinderella - Stars Amanda Seyfried as Rella, a sweet girl in a small town yearning to fall in love. Unfortunately she's under the strict employ of her unhappy, repressed stepmother, played by Laura Dern, proprietress of a small nursing home for retired circus performers. Rella's only friends are seven dwarf brothers who used to do a tumbling act. One night she has disturbing dreams of a man with a pumpkin for a head, giant mice acting out scenes of suburban domesticity, and lizards speaking backward. Then the universe collapses in on itself with disturbing elegance.

The Coen Brothers' Cinderella - Stars Hailee Steinfeld as Ellie, a stubborn young woman who decides she's destined to marry the boy next door, and plots to run away with him. Alas, he mysteriously disappears before they can depart. Frances McDormand plays the stepmother, who spends the first act threatening Ellie with bodily harm when she ducks out of helping with the decorations for the annual cotillion. In a twist, she turns up murdered, so Ellie must sets out on a journey into the seedy depths of suburban Ohio to find the killers, encountering one colorful character after another in her search.

Quentin Tarantino's Cinderella - Stars Chloe Moretz as Cinders, a teenage assassin out for revenge. Her mission is to kill the evil stepmother played by – who else? Uma Thurman – the secret leader of an international organization of neo-Nazi supervillains. The ball is merely a set-up, and Cinders is really there to rescue Prince Charming, fulfilling an old promise to her mentor in the killing arts, the Fairy Godmother. This requires dueling her stepmother to the death using shards of the glass slippers, and her mother's heirloom Hattori Hanzo sword.

Michael Bay's Cinderella – Stars Rosie Huntington-Whiteley as Cinderella Johnson, personal assistant to a brilliant industrialist named Mr. Charming, who is secretly a government agent. His identity is compromised and terrorists take Cinderella hostage, just as aliens attack the earth and all machines become sentient and turn on humanity. Cinderella and Mr. Charming spend three hours running for their lives, crashing expensive cars, and blowing up anything that moves. Cinderella is in a negligee and glass high heels the entire time, but her lipstick never gets smudged.

Lars von Trier's Cinderella - Actually, now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure that was "Melancholia."
---

Read More

The State of Racebending

I think this is a good time to take stock of the current state of race-based casting practices in Hollywood again, since the subject has come up in a few recent releases. First, I want to point out that I've noticed a growing level of sensitivity to the issue, and there have been some significant bullets that have been dodged in recent months. Looking at the list of potentially problematic projects, mostly anime and manga adaptations, almost none of them have moved forward. Notably, the big budget "Akira" project has been all but quashed, while Spike Lee's new version of "Oldboy" is transplanting the story to America instead of trying to revisit the Korean characters.

Two recent prestige pictures have taken some heat for changing the ethnicities of real life people so that the parts could be played by Caucasian actors. I feel that "Argo" was the more egregious case, because director Ben Affleck touted the film's authenticity, yet cast himself as the film's hero, CIA operative Antonio Mendez. And then there's "The Impossible," which got a lot of flack even before its release for choosing to focus on a rich Caucasian family's experiences during the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. It turns out that there was a real family who the main characters were based on, the Belons, who are Spanish. Notably, "The Impossible" is a Spanish production and has a Spanish director, Juan Antonio Bayona. However, his lead actors are Naomi Watts and Ewan McGregor instead of Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz. No one has denied that the characters were anglicized in order to make the film more appealing to wider audiences, but the move was so blatant that "The Impossible" has sparked an outpouring of commentary, including this critical Guardian article.

Another film that prompted considerable discussion was "Cloud Atlas," which had a multicultural cast, and the actors played multiple characters in six different stories, including characters of different ethnicities and genders. This is a problematic one on several levels, but I'm inclined to give the movie a pass because all the racebending and genderbending was handled with balance and consistency, so we had a Korean actress playing a Caucasian woman in one sequence, and then an African American woman playing an Asian man in another, and Hugh Grant done up like a cannibal in tribal war paint in a third. The execution wasn't great, but I can't find fault with the filmmakers' artistic choices since they went to such extremes to pull this off, and the decision clearly wasn't made because they were trying to make the film more marketable or because it was a matter of convenience. In this case the good intentions, even if they were somewhat misguided, alleviate some of the sting. However, I still think the segment that had Jim Sturgess, Hugo Weaving, and others made up to look like Koreans is so off-putting, I'll be using it as a good example of why yellowface makeup is almost always a terrible idea.

The important thing to take to heart is that people are talking about the issue. Directors have had to address casting grumbles months in advance, and to take racial sensitivities into greater account. There are watchdog groups specifically keeping tabs on casting issues, and the audience has gotten more clued in too. I wrote a little about the "Hunger Games" casting controversy, but the real fireworks happened after the film's release, when there was an uproar over insensitive Twitter comments made about the film's African-American characters. I think we are seeing the culture shifting, and the greater awareness of some of these problematic casting practices, even if we're not at the point of widespread rejection yet. However, I'm optimistic that things can continue to improve.

I expect the biggest potential controversy on the horizon is Johnny Depp playing Tonto in "The Lone Ranger." Depp has long claimed Native American heritage and went and got himself adopted by a Native American tribe in a sign of good faith, but I don't know if that's going to be enough to stymie criticisms. His Tonto in the "Lone Ranger" trailers looks awfully stereotypical. Otherwise, I'm hopeful about this summer. Will and Jaden Smith will star in M. Night Shyamalan's "After Earth," "Fast Six" will feature its usual multicultural cast, and the giant robot v. giant monster movie "Pacific Rim" put out a teaser trailer that features Idris Elba and Rinko Kikuchi.

This upcoming awards season will also celebrate the success of films like "Django Unchained," "Beast of the Southern Wild," and "Life of Pi," all featuring non-white lead characters. It would have been nice to be able to add "Argo" and "The Impossible" to that list, but, well, bygones. It's enough for me that the whitewashing of the Spanish and Latino characters did not go unnoticed this time around. And maybe next time, the filmmakers will think twice before writing off non-white leads.
---

Read More

My Top Ten "Buffy" Episodes

Because it's the kind of day where I need a little "Buffy" to cheer me up, here are my ten favorite episodes of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," listed in chronological order. As usual, I'll be cheating and counting two-parters as single entries. And spoilers! Spoilers everywhere!

Halloween - One of my favorite comedic installments, where the gang falls victim to a spell that turns them into whatever Halloween costume they happen to be wearing. Willow ends up a ghost, Buffy is stuck as a ditzy Southern belle, and Xander goes one-man-army on us. It's a shame that he villain of the week, Ethan Rayne, never developed into anything more interesting despite his connections with Giles, because he shows a lot of potential here.

Surprise and Innocence - The second season two-parter where Buffy finally gets intimate with Angel, and Angel loses his soul, turning into the monstrous Angelus. This was the big turning point in the Buffy and Angel romance that kept it from being the kind of maudlin high school girl's fantasy that we got in the "Twilight" franchise. Angelus also makes for an awfully fun villain, and I count him as one of the series' most satisfying Big Bads.

Becoming - Another big two-parter that ended the second season with Buffy and Angelus's big showdown. The MVP here was Spike, though, the sarcastic vampire baddie whose resentments toward Angelus and distaste for apocalypses make him an ally of convenience to the Scooby Gang. With loads of payoff for all the arcs in a very eventful season, these weren't the show's best episodes, but they're the ones I think of first when someone mentions "Buffy."

The Wish - Of all the worst-cast-scenario episodes I've ever seen, this is probably my favorite. You have a truly nightmarish version of Sunnyvale, twisted versions of all the main characters, including a jaw-droppingly sexualized Willow, and the show even goes so far as to kill our regular universe POV character, Cordelia, halfway through the episode. And yet the good guys still prove to be the good guys at heart, and prevail in the end.

The Zeppo - Xander saves the day while the rest of the gang are distracted by yet another impending apocalypse. The episode and Nicolas Brendan's performance in it are so good, it actually sparked a small fan campaign to get Brendan cast as Spider-man in the Sam Raimi films. Loaded with humor, culminating in a great one-night-stand sequence with then-newbie character Faith, "The Zeppo" is the ultimate Xander episode.

Graduation Day - Another season finale two-parter, and one of the most significant in the show's run. These were two of the three episodes delayed due to the Columbine shootings, and the fans did not react well, resorting to bootlegging the broadcast from the Canadians, with Joss Whedon's blessing. After all, we'd waited three years to see the Scooby Gang say goodbye to their high school days, and Sunnydale High blown to smithereens.

Hush - The Gentlemen were probably the scariest villains that the show ever came up with. The floating, the grimaces, and those minions flopping about in their straitjackets - all of it was such wonderful nightmare fuel. A good chunk of the normally dialogue-heavy show is completely without dialogue, resulting in Giles having to use a projector and transparencies to deliver his usual exposition, and Buffy left to fight without her quips.

Fool for Love - The Spike episode that finally shows us his history with Slayers and brings about a definitive end to the drawn-out arc where he couldn't harm humans due to that inhibitor chip implanted by the Initiative. There's loads of good character development here, and the flashback scenes are a lot of fun, particularly Spike's origin story and his falling out with Drusilla. I'm not sure I buy his relationship with Buffy, but at least the lead-in to it is great.

The Body - The later seasons of "Buffy" were much less consistent than the early ones, but it could occasionally still come up with moments of brilliance. One of these was the death of Joyce Summers, which was not totally unexpected but still arrived with uncomfortable suddenness. "Buffy" had killed off many characters before, but this was the death with the biggest impact, and handled in the most realistic and heartbreaking fashion.

Normal Again - I know, I know. The sixth season episode everyone loves is "Once More With Feeling," the musical episode. However, my favorite was the one that took the opposite approach, questioning every unrealistic element of the series by introducing us to an alternate universe where Sunnydale is only the figment of a mentally disturbed Buffy's imagination. Though the concept came up a little short, this is still one of the show's bravest hours.

Honorable mentions go to "Out of Sight, Out of Mind," "School Hard," "What's My Line," "Lover's Walk," "Doppelgangland," (best Willow episode), "Restless," "Hell's Bells," and "Chosen."
---

Read More

Mulder, Scully, Superman, and Me

Tis the season. Christmas is coming, and with it the first trailers for some of next summer's biggest movies, including "Star Trek: Into Darkness," Guillermo Del Toro's "Pacific Rim," and the new Superman movie, "Man of Steel." It's "Man of Steel" that's been on my mind lately. The recently released teaser posters have provoked a storm of discussion, and I've been faced with a familiar dilemma.

One part of me, the skeptic, the cynic, the Dana Scully in me, wants to reject the hype. Zack Snyder has directing duties, and I consider his work pretty shaky at best. Writer David S. Goyer isn't much better, responsible for some of the best recent comic book adaptations and some I'd rather forget about. I'm not against Warners making another attempt to launch a "Superman" franchise after the underperformance of "Superman Returns," but I'm not sure that this is the right creative team to do it with. The involvement of Christopher Nolan as a producer has been touted as a plus, but I'm not convinced that the darker and grittier sensibilities he brought to his Batman movie would translate well to a more idealistic, more fantastic superhero like Superman.

But then there's the Fox Mulder part of me, who wants so very badly to believe. I loved Richard Donner's 1978 "Superman" film as a kid, and was always a little disappointed that nobody got him right since, not in the cartoons, not in the television shows, and not in the modern movies. I look at that new teaser poster, and the possibility of "Man of Steel" being the Superman film I've been waiting for gets me terribly excited. Looking at the cast list, I'm not too familiar with Henry Cavill, the new man in the cape, but Amy Adams should make a great Lois Lane, and Michael Shannon is resurrecting one of the most entertaining villains from the older movies – General Zod. Remember General Zod? If the rumors about the return of Khan Noonien Singh to the "Star Trek" universe turn out to be false, we're still going to be getting some prime sci-fi villain ham next summer.

Then again, the choice of Zod seems a little desperate. It's worth nothing that "Man of Steel" wasn't greenlit because someone had a brilliant new take on the Superman mythos that roused Warners to action. No, it was a court case decided in 2009, the one that gave Superman creator Jerry Siegel's heirs the rights to Superman's characters and origins. The decision stated that if Warners didn't begin production on a Superman film by 2011, they could be sued for lost revenue on an unproduced film. That was the impetus for the new reboot, and it's not one that inspires much confidence. Considering all the false starts and dead ends over the years, Superman has proven to be a tough character to modernize. People are still passing around those awful costume test photos from the scrapped Tim Burton "Superman Lives" that would have starred Nicolas Cage.

But I did like that first teaser trailer that played with "The Dark Knight Rises," showing Clark Kent travelling the world and seeking answers. I liked that it looked different from any other take on Superman I've seen in a long time, and that the filmmakers are clearly not afraid to strike out in a new direction. And maybe getting a little darker and more serious wouldn't hurt, considering that the last time Warners tried to do something lighter and more fantasy-oriented with one of their superheroes, we ended up with "The Green Lantern." The trailer did show off some great visuals, and if the studios can reign in Zack Snyder's worst impulses and bad habits, we could get something really interesting.

Of course that's a big if, and Warners has had a lot more failures than successes lately with its DC superhero franchises that aren't about Batman. They're so far behind the Marvel films, it's no contest.

Considering how much Warners has riding on the film, though, including a potential future "Justice League" franchise, I'm sure they'll spare no expense and take all necessary steps to ensure success.

But Russell Crowe is playing Jor-El. We're not too keen on Russell Crowe.

But Laurence Fishburne is playing Perry White. We like Laurence Fishburne!

So here I sit, debating back and forth with myself, and instead of an angel and devil, I have a pair of FBI agents from "The X-files" sitting on my shoulders, and both of them are somehow film nerds who have read too many film articles and comic-book geek discussions. And I haven't decided yet if I'm anticipating "Man of Steel" or if I'm dreading it, if I'm rooting for its success or hoping for minimal embarrassment.

All I know is that next year, whether it's a success or a failure, it's going to be big.
---

Read More