I've had a lot of prodding to get caught up on Mad Men for season five, so I'm finally giving it a go from episode one. Don't know how far I'll get, but this is as good a pilot as I've seen in a while; it might take a while, but I'll probably get through the series at some point.
It's impossible to be alive and conscious in 2012 and not know something about Mad Men. I know that it's about white guys in suits who smoke and drink (rye) all day. I know that Christina Hendricks has enormous boobs. I know that Don Draper talks smooth. And I know that Sterling is sexy not despite, but because of his silver hair, and I know that he has enough one-liners to fill a YouTube highlight reel.
The singular impression that I get, though, is that Mad Men is a reflection of what it used to be like to be a (rich) (straight) (white) man in (New York) America, and the first episode makes that distinction shine out against a multitude of foils. We have the blacks (a waiter and an elevator operator), the Jews (a mail clerk and a business-woman), the gay (a graphic artist), and the women (the aforementioned businesswomen, but otherwise secretaries, switchboard operators, strippers, automat girls, and housewives). Every character in the first episode is defined by either being a straight white man, or not being a straight white man.
Mad Men is set in the 1960s, but there's no doubt that it's intended for a 2000's audience. In addition to the white/black, gay/straight, man/woman issues, the first episode raises the tobacco issue, which is one of those debates (like climate change or evolution) that feels like it should have been settled decades ago, but isn't. The cancer issue may be settled, but the recent mandate for graphic health warnings on cigarette packaging in the U.S. reminds us that there are certainly plenty of people out there who don't give a fuck, and there are plenty of other people out there trying to convince them otherwise.
I watched this episode streaming on Netflix, and was immensely relieved when the picture quality improved drastically about a quarter of the way in. Mad Men is a pleasure to look at, and it's well-crafted television in every way. My intuitions might turn out to be wrong, but I certainly got very strong indications, even though this is just the first episode, as to who the main characters were and who it was safe to ignore, and what each character's persona is. For one example, after about five seconds of screen time, it is clear, without being blatent, that Sal is gay. (It only becomes blatent in a later scene in a strip club when a woman comments "I love this place. It's hot, loud, and filled with men.", to which Sal replies "I know what you mean.") We also get introduced to the Jon Hamm effect, which gets a wonderful send-up in 30 Rock, whereby he is able to overcome any obstacle by virtue of his good looks. (I'm thinking of how he manages to offend a female Jewish client, only to win her over by buying her a drink and smiling at her later that evening.)
Overall, episode one sets the stage well, and I'm looking forward to seeing where it leads.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Friday, May 4, 2012
Monsters (2010)
Terry's Grade: B
I think Monsters falls into that category of movie that definitely worth watching if you're looking for something to do, but isn't necessarily worth going out of your way for. My main criticism of the movie is that, basically, nothing happens. But that's also one of the reasons I like it. Monsters is a movie that takes on an established genre from a new angle, and does it well. First, it belongs to the sci-fi genre of "giant, slithery, blinking aliens have come to Earth and they're killing our people and desolating our landscapes," but it's generally a quiet, kind of slow movie. Sure, there are scenes with machine guns blasting and cars getting tossed around, but they're put in as punctuation, not the main content. Also, it's a movie in the "we don't really get a good look at these aliens until the end of the movie" genre, but it avoids the overused handheld camera trope, and reminds us that there's a reason why we like movies that use good photographers. (Not coincidentally, I suspect, the main character is himself a photographer.)
Monsters is entirely Gareth Edwards' creation; he wrote, directed, filmed, and created the special effects himself. According to Wikipedia, the shooting crew was made up of just five people, plus the two main actors, and the total budget was a half a million dollars. Monsters definitely has some of the qualities of the new low-budget sci-fi: the aliens have fairly limited screen time and the plot is very character-oriented -- it's much more of a love story than an alien invasion story. What stands out is the fact that the special effects stand up extremely well when we finally get a good look at them; while the budget might have been a factor in the limited amount of screen time for the aliens (I imagine Mr. Edwards had his hands full), these are not low-budget effects. In a similar sort of cost-saving measure, the script only involves two main characters, and the actors who play them are adept and well-suited to their roles. Most of the supporting roles are well-played by what I assume are local Mexican actors or just locals. The only bad actors in the movie are a couple of voices on telephones.
While the photography and effects are excellent, and the acting is more than passable, the script isn't exactly great. This is the sort of movie that isn't really out to explain where the aliens came from, or why they kill (eat?) people, and that's fine. There are some great hints about some aspects of their behavior, but that's not really a focus of the movie. The focus is on the two characters, but even in that area not much is explained. They fall in love, but I'm not sure why: the photographer, played by Scott McNairy, is kind of a sweetheart jerk, and the girl, played by Whitney Able, is pretty much a non-entity. (Actually, I guess they're they're perfect for each other.) This is a journey movie; the two characters set out at the beginning and reach their destination in the end, with all sorts of obstacles which need to be overcome along the way. But there's no real climax; I never got the big battle or chase that I felt was coming. They reach their destination, and the movie just sort of ends.
TL;DR -- quiet, character-driven sci-fi shot on location in third-world Mexico; great photography and good visual effects; well-acted love-story; slow plot with no climax or resolution.
I think Monsters falls into that category of movie that definitely worth watching if you're looking for something to do, but isn't necessarily worth going out of your way for. My main criticism of the movie is that, basically, nothing happens. But that's also one of the reasons I like it. Monsters is a movie that takes on an established genre from a new angle, and does it well. First, it belongs to the sci-fi genre of "giant, slithery, blinking aliens have come to Earth and they're killing our people and desolating our landscapes," but it's generally a quiet, kind of slow movie. Sure, there are scenes with machine guns blasting and cars getting tossed around, but they're put in as punctuation, not the main content. Also, it's a movie in the "we don't really get a good look at these aliens until the end of the movie" genre, but it avoids the overused handheld camera trope, and reminds us that there's a reason why we like movies that use good photographers. (Not coincidentally, I suspect, the main character is himself a photographer.)
Monsters is entirely Gareth Edwards' creation; he wrote, directed, filmed, and created the special effects himself. According to Wikipedia, the shooting crew was made up of just five people, plus the two main actors, and the total budget was a half a million dollars. Monsters definitely has some of the qualities of the new low-budget sci-fi: the aliens have fairly limited screen time and the plot is very character-oriented -- it's much more of a love story than an alien invasion story. What stands out is the fact that the special effects stand up extremely well when we finally get a good look at them; while the budget might have been a factor in the limited amount of screen time for the aliens (I imagine Mr. Edwards had his hands full), these are not low-budget effects. In a similar sort of cost-saving measure, the script only involves two main characters, and the actors who play them are adept and well-suited to their roles. Most of the supporting roles are well-played by what I assume are local Mexican actors or just locals. The only bad actors in the movie are a couple of voices on telephones.
While the photography and effects are excellent, and the acting is more than passable, the script isn't exactly great. This is the sort of movie that isn't really out to explain where the aliens came from, or why they kill (eat?) people, and that's fine. There are some great hints about some aspects of their behavior, but that's not really a focus of the movie. The focus is on the two characters, but even in that area not much is explained. They fall in love, but I'm not sure why: the photographer, played by Scott McNairy, is kind of a sweetheart jerk, and the girl, played by Whitney Able, is pretty much a non-entity. (Actually, I guess they're they're perfect for each other.) This is a journey movie; the two characters set out at the beginning and reach their destination in the end, with all sorts of obstacles which need to be overcome along the way. But there's no real climax; I never got the big battle or chase that I felt was coming. They reach their destination, and the movie just sort of ends.
TL;DR -- quiet, character-driven sci-fi shot on location in third-world Mexico; great photography and good visual effects; well-acted love-story; slow plot with no climax or resolution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)