(no subject)
Apr. 24th, 2017 08:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Cancelled Feud: Bette and Joan from the DVR, it's too heavy-handed in its themes. A difficulty I have with the writing team of Brad Palchuck and Ryan Murphy is their lack of subtly. They feel a need to hammer you over the head with things. I'm either bored or irritated.
2. Co-worker, who had lent me The Witches of Karres, which I still haven't gotten around to reading, suggested another book -- this one is entitle "A Twist in Time" which is the sequel to "A Murder in Time" -- which is about an FBI agent who journeys back to the 1800s or thereabouts, and runs into a murder mystery. The first book involves a serial killer -- who is in the present and past, not sure if it is the same one or not. And the second, which looks more interesting, is about the death of Lady, that the protagonist's lover is framed for. I looked at the reviews on Amazon, and they aren't very promising -- describe it as a decent YA romantic mystery sci-fi novel, with a lead character who is a bit of a "mary sue" and not a lot of good character development. Also it's the time travel trope, which coworker likes, but tends to annoy me.
There's only one or two television series that have utilized time travel that worked for me and they are:
Sarah Connor Chronicles
Doctor Who
Everything else plays loose and fast with the rules, and doesn't seem to have any sense of consistency or consequence. In short they use it as plot device or gimmick, while Doctor Who and Sarah Connor actually explore the science of it in some depth.
Books? I'm similarly picky about. To date the only one's that have done it in a way that I appreciated were Kate Atkinson in Life After Life, and Connie Willis in The Doomsday Book, because both explored it in an interesting way. I preferred Connie Willis to Atkinson, who I found a bit gimmicky -- she's making the same mistakes with The Catch that she did with Life After Life, btw.
I also liked how Ray Bradbury dealt with it in "Sound of Thunder". And, oh, by far my favorite, was Jack Finney in Time After Time. Have you ever read Jack Finney? He wrote the original "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" -- which I think I still own, somewhere. I have my books secreted in various spots in my apartment. Hidden from view and from myself, making it difficult for me to find them and read them.
I tried to tell co-worker that I don't like serial killer plot lines. And had avoided the television series "Time After Time" because of that. But he didn't listen to me and foisted the book on me anyhow. Although to be fair, he foisted the sequel, which doesn't deal with a serial killer.
2. Co-worker, who had lent me The Witches of Karres, which I still haven't gotten around to reading, suggested another book -- this one is entitle "A Twist in Time" which is the sequel to "A Murder in Time" -- which is about an FBI agent who journeys back to the 1800s or thereabouts, and runs into a murder mystery. The first book involves a serial killer -- who is in the present and past, not sure if it is the same one or not. And the second, which looks more interesting, is about the death of Lady, that the protagonist's lover is framed for. I looked at the reviews on Amazon, and they aren't very promising -- describe it as a decent YA romantic mystery sci-fi novel, with a lead character who is a bit of a "mary sue" and not a lot of good character development. Also it's the time travel trope, which coworker likes, but tends to annoy me.
There's only one or two television series that have utilized time travel that worked for me and they are:
Sarah Connor Chronicles
Doctor Who
Everything else plays loose and fast with the rules, and doesn't seem to have any sense of consistency or consequence. In short they use it as plot device or gimmick, while Doctor Who and Sarah Connor actually explore the science of it in some depth.
Books? I'm similarly picky about. To date the only one's that have done it in a way that I appreciated were Kate Atkinson in Life After Life, and Connie Willis in The Doomsday Book, because both explored it in an interesting way. I preferred Connie Willis to Atkinson, who I found a bit gimmicky -- she's making the same mistakes with The Catch that she did with Life After Life, btw.
I also liked how Ray Bradbury dealt with it in "Sound of Thunder". And, oh, by far my favorite, was Jack Finney in Time After Time. Have you ever read Jack Finney? He wrote the original "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" -- which I think I still own, somewhere. I have my books secreted in various spots in my apartment. Hidden from view and from myself, making it difficult for me to find them and read them.
I tried to tell co-worker that I don't like serial killer plot lines. And had avoided the television series "Time After Time" because of that. But he didn't listen to me and foisted the book on me anyhow. Although to be fair, he foisted the sequel, which doesn't deal with a serial killer.
Joan Crawford Has Risen from the Grave
Date: 2017-04-25 02:24 pm (UTC)I liked Feud a lot more than you did.
I don't go into a Ryan Murphy project expecting "subtle," so I wasn't bothered by the series' excess of excess.
Not that I didn't have complaints-- just not the same ones you did. I thought Murphy's choice to play the feud between Crawford and Davis as a Grand Guignol horror story similar to the one they played in "Baby Jane" undercut his own themes. On the one hand, he's decrying the ruthless treatment of these actresses and the exploitation of their feud by the Hollywood system; on the other hand, he gleefully indulges us with every nasty detail, often cued up with horror movie music.
Jack Warner isn't the only one indulging in "hagsploitation."
But, reservations aside, the acting here is too good to ignore. I especially liked Judy Davis, just the right combination of delightfully bitchy and slightly terrifying as Hedda Hopper; Alfred Molina, dancing on eggshells as Robert Aldrich; and Stanley Tucci as Jack Warner--funny, charismatic rat bastard.
Sarandon is tremendous as Davis, never letting the famous voice and mannerisms get in the way of the character; but in the end, Lange steals the show. If you can stomach it, try to see the finale. Most of the Hollywood nonsense falls away, because the roles have stopped coming. We are left with Crawford, alone, dying, holed up in her New York apartment, thinking about the sacrifices she made--both physical and emotional--to be "Joan Crawford." If she can't be Joan Crawford anymore, then who is she? Was it all worth it?
It is heartbreaking.
Murphy said that part of the reason he did this series was for his grandmother, the woman who introduced him to Crawford and Davis. He wanted to explore how we grow old in this country, how hard it is--especially for women. It's this motivation--not the tittering showbiz gossip--that gives the final episode its power.
I could go for a Feud 3: Hedda and Louella, if they could get Judy Davis back. (Feud 2 is going to be Charles and Diana--coming soon!)
I could REALLY go for a miniseries about Jewish Hollywood moguls like the Warners, Adolf Zuker, Louis B. Mayer and Sam Goldwyn, dirt-poor immigrants from Europe who carved out "An Empire of their Own" (to quote Neal Gabler's book title)--and ironically, created a dream machine that reflected, for better or worse, the society that kept them at a distance.
Re: Joan Crawford Has Risen from the Grave
Date: 2017-04-25 03:41 pm (UTC)I don't go into a Ryan Murphy project expecting "subtle," so I wasn't bothered by the series' excess of excess.
Over time, I've come to the slow conclusion...that I don't like excess in my entertainment choices. It seems to irritate me for some reason that I can't quite put a finger on. I've tried all of Murphy's series and the only two I was able to stick with for a length of time...were the only two that weren't over-the-top, Nip-Tuck and Glee. And even those had their cringe-worthy moments of excess.
Over-the-top comedy, drama, etc...just does not work for me. I find myself leaving the room, rolling my eyes, or cringing.
So that may be too big a hurdle for me to overcome. Also, the series...like you said, felt disjointed. He was trying to do two things at once...and my attention kept wandering during it. It may well be a mood thing. Having similar issues watching Victoria. I'm just bored.
Well...and the fact that I have over 60 hours on my DVR and something had to give. LOL!
But, reservations aside, the acting here is too good to ignore. I especially liked Judy Davis, just the right combination of delightfully bitchy and slightly terrifying as Hedda Hopper; Alfred Molina, dancing on eggshells as Robert Aldrich; and Stanley Tucci as Jack Warner--funny, charismatic rat bastard.
Sarandon is tremendous as Davis, never letting the famous voice and mannerisms get in the way of the character; but in the end, Lange steals the show
The only reason I stuck around as long as I did was the performances...the acting is amazing on all fronts. Particularly with Lange and Sarandon. None go for cheap caricature, which surprised me. If only the writing lived up to the performances. It felt very...one-sided at times.
I may catch the last two episodes on Demand. Already deleted it from the DVR.
I could go for a Feud 3: Hedda and Louella, if they could get Judy Davis back. (Feud 2 is going to be Charles and Diana--coming soon!)
Ugh, skipping Charles and Diana. The media needs to stop exploiting that one. Hedda and Louella could be interesting, also Fontain and de Havilland.
I could REALLY go for a miniseries about Jewish Hollywood moguls like the Warners, Adolf Zuker, Louis B. Mayer and Sam Goldwyn, dirt-poor immigrants from Europe who carved out "An Empire of their Own" (to quote Neal Gabler's book title)--and ironically, created a dream machine that reflected, for better or worse, the society that kept them at a distance.
I think to a degree it's been done in various venues...at least in movies and books?
But it would be interesting to see a miniseries about old Hollywood. History isn't nice to those old Hollywood moguls. Not nice at all.