![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatI managed to see all the Oscar Nominated films for Best Animation, the last three over the weekend. I'm not sure you can really compare or choose between them? They are so different, and will appeal to different tastes? All have similar universal themes? But that's about it. Outside of being animated and similar on a general thematic level - they are nothing alike.
1. Memoir of a Snail was not at all what I expected. First off, this is an Australian film. It's obviously an Australian film - it takes place in Australia for one thing, and everyone sounds Australian in it. It's an independent Australian film by way of IFC (the distributor). (there's three independent entries in the Oscar race, Memoir (Australian), Flow (French), and Wallace and Grommit (British).)
After seeing all the others, I was expecting a children's film about a snail.
It is not a children's film and while it has "snails" in it - it's not about a snail. I picked up on this right before the opening credits rolled - it's R-rated. And I thought, okay, that's interesting. How are they doing an R-rated film with stop motion? It's among the few R-rated animated films I've seen, there aren't that many. Nor do I tend to (generally speaking) seek them out - because, well..if you've seen them, you will understand?
I admittedly have mixed feelings about this film.
Mother: would you recommend it?
ME: uhm, I'm not entirely sure I'd recommend it to anyone? It's admittedly innovative and brilliant in places? But also dark, kind of repulsive, a little on the offensive side, with a biting and somewhat crude sense of humor?
Mother: did you like it?
ME: I honestly don't know.
Mother: you obviously found it watchable -
Me: Oh it was compelling. I stayed up past my bedtime watching it - because I miscalculated and thought it would be shorter than it was. Also it haunts me with visuals that I'm not entirely sure I want in my head?
It was also absurdly funny in places. It has a biting sardonic adult wit. But not for the metaphor blind, the jokes will jump over your head and do the hoochie coochie and turn themselves about.
The "snail" is metaphorical. Grace is the snail - this is Grace's memoir and she sees herself as a snail who has retreated into a shell.
The gist of the film is live forward, don't dwell on childhood traumas, and find joy in the little things day to day. Basically don't become a snail hoarding things. (It made me look around my apartment and wonder what I need to get rid of. And I'm not a hoarder. I get rid of stuff constantly.)
What is it about? A pair of twins (Grace and Gilbert Puddle - fitting, I feel like I'm watching it through a dirty puddle), told from the point of view of the female twin (Grace Puddle - voiced by Sarah Snook). Her main relationships are with her father (Eric Bana is the voice, who dies early on), her twin, Gilbert (who is a male version of her - yet oddly more attractive to the eye? I think the male animators have issues creating the female form?), Pinky (an old lady who has lived an insane life - and is voiced by Jackie Weaver), Ken (a creepy guy that is into her naked fat body, keeps taking photos of it before and after he marries her, keeps a scrap book, feeds her red sausages and lard milkshakes, and marries her due to this fetish - which she figures out later and boots him for it), and Drunken Magistrate. (Nick Cave does the voice of one of Pinky's husbands. And yes, that Nick Cave. I saw him in the credits, and thought, that Nick Cave? Looked it up and yup, that Nick Cave. This film has quite the vocal talent behind it.) I don't get why animators spend money on famous actors to voice cartoon characters? I can't recognize their voices? Can you recognize their voices? Why not just get good voice actors like they used to back in the day - would be cheaper?
Anyhow, the film is a closed or wrap-around narrative arc, where the beginning is also kind of the ending? It opens with Pinky's death, and Grace telling her life story to her pet snail Sylvia, who she has finally let loose in Pinky's garden. And the climax is well her completing her tale to Sylvia, then the epilogue is kind of what happens after. It's one of those films that you keep thinking has ended, but no...there's more? I kept going wait, when is this film ending? Does it have an ending? (I'd have edited it down a bit. I felt some of the sight gags went on too long and it bordered on self-indulgent. I get it - they went to a lot of work to painstakingly create everything and wanted to put it all in there.)
Example of the biting wit?
Grace meets Pinky returning her library books via the garbage bin because she can't see the library return slot and mistakes the slot on the garbage bin for the return. Upon realizing this, Pinky is embarrassed but gets over it and throws her cigar in the trash with the library books setting everything accidentally on fire.
Pinky is called Pinky because she lost her pinky finger dancing topless burlesque in Barcelona, and her pinky got sliced off by a fan (and yes, we get to see the old wrinkled Pinky and her barely covered body dancing Burlesque on a table top, until her pinky finger gets sliced off by a fan.)
Another example? Grace: Gilbert loved fire, loved playing with it, loved it so much, he wanted to eat it. (Gilbert dreams of being a fire eater and Grace a stop-motion animator.)
When Grace and Gilbert's father dies of sleep apnea, they didn't clap to wake him up fast enough apparently, they are sent to separate foster homes by social services across the country. (Sigh. Our media gives adoption and socials services a bad rap. It's not quite as bad as our media likes to make it out. I know my cousin adopted three kids that she fostered, two were a brother and sister.) Grace goes to a childless couple in Canberra, who are into self-help books and eventually leave her with their colony of guinea pigs, while they join a nudist colony. Gilbert goes to a religious family who tries to convert him, it doesn't end well - or rather it ends much as you'd expect with a rebellious teen into fire and who happens to be gay stuck with fundamentalist Jesus freaks. They are very far apart. (I can't remember where Gilbert is, exactly in Australia, just that it is a long way away from Grace.)
It is overall rather uplifting, surprisingly so towards the end, you just have to get there? The animator's have a very dark sense of humor - to say the least. And the animation style kind of complements that? The color scheme unlike all the other movies (with the possible exception of Grommit) is beige, grey, black, soiled white, orange, yellow and spots of red. There's also dingy green and blue. I felt like I was looking at everything through a kind of dull lense? (I'm guessing this is due to the stop-motion clay and glass animation? I didn't notice it was glass - but they mention "glass blowers" in the credits - so clearly it's in there somewhere? There are a lot of windows in the film.)
I say more - I'd give away the movie. And I don't want to do that. I went in blind - completely blind. See above.
Here's a trailer, so you don't have to go into blind if you don't want to:
Trailer of Memoir of a Snail
Eh, the trailer was more uplifting than the movie. I understand why it was nominated, it's innovative. I've not seen anything quite like it, and it haunts me long after it ended. It's clever, intricately animated, and different. I'm just not sure I like it or want to recommend it?
How can you watch it? It's on AMC+ free with subscription, or for $4.99 via Amazon Prime, which is how I did it. Cheaper than a subscription.
2. Inside Out 2 - this apparently was the highest grossing film of 2024 (which says a lot about the film audience in 2024 although I'm not entirely sure what?). It took me three tries to get through this film. I get why it was nominated, I'm just not sure I'm the correct demographic for it? And I liked Inside Out 1 and Turning Red (which kind of tackles the same issues this one does) better - but that's just me.
What is it about? It's much like Turning Red in that it is about female puberty. Although I thought Turning Red handled it a little better? This film is a sequel to Inside Out and while it most likely would work better if you saw the first film? You could most likely figure it out without seeing it? It does give the audience a recap.
The lead character ("Riley") has become a teenager, and entered high school. She's no longer a kid. She has pimples. She has switched schools, and is trying out for the new school's hockey team. Her friends are going to a different school. And as a result - she's filled with all these new foreign emotions: anxiety, embarrassment, ennui, and envy. (Although I remember having all those emotions as a child - so I'm not sure why the animators think these come up when you hit puberty? But I digress.) The story is told mainly from the point of view of Riley's emotions. The villain (to the degree there is one) is Anxiety. That's probably why this film has done so well - it's a film in which the villain is Anxiety, and Riley's Anxiety takes over her body and her life to the extent that she has heart-pounding panic attack. Anxiety, a well-meaning sprite of an emotion, overwhelms the other emotions - kicking Joy, Disgust, Sadness, and Anger to the curb, and replacing them with Ennui, Embarrassment, and Envy, along with a widening chasm of sarcasm.
The gist of the film is kind of similar to Memoir of a Snail - we're all our emotions, and all our memories, and we need to except all of what we are and live forward not behind. Also, don't like anxiety overwhelm us.
Or depression (see Memoir of a Snail). You don't know what is around the next corner.
The animation style is familiar to anyone who has watched Pixar. But after seeing the other films, I think Pixar may need to up its game a bit? It's prettier than snail. Bright colors. The people are pretty. Most if not all the human characters are female, and well drawn. The emotions are the range and distinctive, with bright upbeat colors. If watching Snail felt like well watching through a dirty mud puddle or snail shell (which might have been deliberate and the point), Inside Out is like watching through a Rainbow of candy coated colors - which probably was also deliberate and the point. I thought it went on too long, and drug a bit. My attention kept wandering away from it. But it was moving towards the end, and delivered. I cried at the end of it - I admit that.
It's on Disney +, and recommended for ages 12 and up. It is not an independent film and was done by Pixar Studios which is part of Disney Animation Studios.
3. The Wild Robot - this is Dreamworks entry, distributor is Universal Studios.
It's a stunning film. And definitely a children's film. Ages 10 and up.
A bit long, but compelling. It concerns a robot that crash lands on an island that has no one but wild animals, birds, etc. It's science fiction.
Heartwarming. And the point of view is mainly the robot.
I think it's better to go into it blind, like I did?
It's computer animation or rather digitized animation (which has smoother look and feel than Pixar, also more realistic), reminds me of cell animation but has a 3D aspect to it, and quite lovely, although still looks like a Disney cartoon with talking animals. Somehow the robot manages to translate the animals languages, although I lost how it managed to translate the animals languages to each other? Maybe they already understood each other?
I'd have liked it better if the animals didn't speak - but then we wouldn't have voice actors like Bill Nighy, Pedro Pascale, Kit Connor and Mark Hamill voicing some of them. (Of course I didn't recognize any of their voices - because honestly, most people's voices aren't that distinctive to me?)
Also I think it's too long, it drug in places. But it is a beautiful film, uplifting and moving. With a lovely theme about community, environmental sustainability, family, taking care of others, and diversity, but mainly kindness.
I cried. I admit it. I also laughed here and there, not as much as I did with Memoir of a Snail - but this wasn't a comedy?
Wild Robot is available on Peacock for free with subscription.
***
So, now that I've seen all the Oscar films? Here's how I would rank them, although to be fair? They aren't really comparable. This is just a personal preference thing? Completely subjective. Because all the films are brilliant innovative pieces of animation in their own right, and artistic achievements. Of the films, I found the Memoir of the Snail and Flow to be the most surprising and innovative - they both haunt long afterwards. Flow I want to see again and adored.
On Television front, tried Poker Face created/directed by Rian Johnson, with the main show-runners being the ones who want to do the Buffy reboot. The pilot episode was okay, but didn't really blow me away. I agree with the folks who state that Natasha Lyon's character is a kind of female Columbo, but not quite as bright as Columbo, nor with the backup. I think Columbo worked better.
The setup is that Charlie Cale (Lyon's character) can tell if someone is lying, just not always why. Basically she can see through their poker face.
But she doesn't know why they are lying - so works to figure that out.
And pieces it together - kind of like Columbo did with various observations. It's the Sherlock Holmes Detective Trope - the detective's tick is they are keen observers of human behavior and figure out the crime based on this tick. It's also the Holmes trope - in that the Detective confronts the villain and tells them exactly how they figured it out. (I always found this part idiotic. I mean why would you confront the murderer with their crime and explain how they did it? To get a confession? Really? They could kill you. I can see someone who has some power behind them doing this - such as Columbo, but Charlie who is just a card shark who's banned from playing Poker Games?) It actually blows up in her face the first time she does it - and is the reason she's on the run. And I'm thinking, she could disappear without a trace if she wanted to? But no, she continues to do the same thing everywhere she goes.
I don't know if I'll stick with it or not? It's a bit too episodic for my taste. It did do well apparently - it only had one season. Aired in 2023.
Then I tried Northern Exposure on Amazon Prime. Unlike Buffy, it does not hold up well. Granted it was filmed in the mid-1990s. I suppose it depends on how you view it? But the Native Americans are used as comic relief, and Joel is ...well beyond sexist in how he relates to the women in the town. We also have the whole Shelly (Miss America who is in her early twenties) being fought over by two men old enough to be her grandfather.
I looked it up? It much like Ally McBeal derailed in its final seasons (basically seasons 4-5). It is really hard for a television show to make it past five seasons or to five seasons apparently. I vaguely remember giving up on it 1995. The reason it derailed was the same one that Ally did, writer turn-over and actor turn-over due to back stage disputes. Except Northern Exposure's dispute was also a legal one - apparently the producers got sued for stealing another writer's idea and handing to two different writers - without their knowledge. (I'm surprised that got held up in court - a concept or idea isn't technically speaking copyrightable? But I guess if you can prove it?) What was the idea? It's not what you might think? It's not that a Jewish doctor moves to Alaska and sets up a Practice, no, it's an Italian American doctor gets a job in a remote town in the South and starts a practice. (Why would a judge consider that original? The fish out of water trope didn't originate with Northern Exposure or with this guy's idea. Actually I think Michael J Fox played it. He did, in 1991, it was called Doc Hollywood, and the idea was : "a young doctor travels across country for a job interview and gets stuck there working in its hospital for 8 days). Which I guess was this guy's idea?
What was that Judge smoking?
1. Memoir of a Snail was not at all what I expected. First off, this is an Australian film. It's obviously an Australian film - it takes place in Australia for one thing, and everyone sounds Australian in it. It's an independent Australian film by way of IFC (the distributor). (there's three independent entries in the Oscar race, Memoir (Australian), Flow (French), and Wallace and Grommit (British).)
After seeing all the others, I was expecting a children's film about a snail.
It is not a children's film and while it has "snails" in it - it's not about a snail. I picked up on this right before the opening credits rolled - it's R-rated. And I thought, okay, that's interesting. How are they doing an R-rated film with stop motion? It's among the few R-rated animated films I've seen, there aren't that many. Nor do I tend to (generally speaking) seek them out - because, well..if you've seen them, you will understand?
I admittedly have mixed feelings about this film.
Mother: would you recommend it?
ME: uhm, I'm not entirely sure I'd recommend it to anyone? It's admittedly innovative and brilliant in places? But also dark, kind of repulsive, a little on the offensive side, with a biting and somewhat crude sense of humor?
Mother: did you like it?
ME: I honestly don't know.
Mother: you obviously found it watchable -
Me: Oh it was compelling. I stayed up past my bedtime watching it - because I miscalculated and thought it would be shorter than it was. Also it haunts me with visuals that I'm not entirely sure I want in my head?
It was also absurdly funny in places. It has a biting sardonic adult wit. But not for the metaphor blind, the jokes will jump over your head and do the hoochie coochie and turn themselves about.
The "snail" is metaphorical. Grace is the snail - this is Grace's memoir and she sees herself as a snail who has retreated into a shell.
The gist of the film is live forward, don't dwell on childhood traumas, and find joy in the little things day to day. Basically don't become a snail hoarding things. (It made me look around my apartment and wonder what I need to get rid of. And I'm not a hoarder. I get rid of stuff constantly.)
What is it about? A pair of twins (Grace and Gilbert Puddle - fitting, I feel like I'm watching it through a dirty puddle), told from the point of view of the female twin (Grace Puddle - voiced by Sarah Snook). Her main relationships are with her father (Eric Bana is the voice, who dies early on), her twin, Gilbert (who is a male version of her - yet oddly more attractive to the eye? I think the male animators have issues creating the female form?), Pinky (an old lady who has lived an insane life - and is voiced by Jackie Weaver), Ken (a creepy guy that is into her naked fat body, keeps taking photos of it before and after he marries her, keeps a scrap book, feeds her red sausages and lard milkshakes, and marries her due to this fetish - which she figures out later and boots him for it), and Drunken Magistrate. (Nick Cave does the voice of one of Pinky's husbands. And yes, that Nick Cave. I saw him in the credits, and thought, that Nick Cave? Looked it up and yup, that Nick Cave. This film has quite the vocal talent behind it.) I don't get why animators spend money on famous actors to voice cartoon characters? I can't recognize their voices? Can you recognize their voices? Why not just get good voice actors like they used to back in the day - would be cheaper?
Anyhow, the film is a closed or wrap-around narrative arc, where the beginning is also kind of the ending? It opens with Pinky's death, and Grace telling her life story to her pet snail Sylvia, who she has finally let loose in Pinky's garden. And the climax is well her completing her tale to Sylvia, then the epilogue is kind of what happens after. It's one of those films that you keep thinking has ended, but no...there's more? I kept going wait, when is this film ending? Does it have an ending? (I'd have edited it down a bit. I felt some of the sight gags went on too long and it bordered on self-indulgent. I get it - they went to a lot of work to painstakingly create everything and wanted to put it all in there.)
Example of the biting wit?
Grace meets Pinky returning her library books via the garbage bin because she can't see the library return slot and mistakes the slot on the garbage bin for the return. Upon realizing this, Pinky is embarrassed but gets over it and throws her cigar in the trash with the library books setting everything accidentally on fire.
Pinky is called Pinky because she lost her pinky finger dancing topless burlesque in Barcelona, and her pinky got sliced off by a fan (and yes, we get to see the old wrinkled Pinky and her barely covered body dancing Burlesque on a table top, until her pinky finger gets sliced off by a fan.)
Another example? Grace: Gilbert loved fire, loved playing with it, loved it so much, he wanted to eat it. (Gilbert dreams of being a fire eater and Grace a stop-motion animator.)
When Grace and Gilbert's father dies of sleep apnea, they didn't clap to wake him up fast enough apparently, they are sent to separate foster homes by social services across the country. (Sigh. Our media gives adoption and socials services a bad rap. It's not quite as bad as our media likes to make it out. I know my cousin adopted three kids that she fostered, two were a brother and sister.) Grace goes to a childless couple in Canberra, who are into self-help books and eventually leave her with their colony of guinea pigs, while they join a nudist colony. Gilbert goes to a religious family who tries to convert him, it doesn't end well - or rather it ends much as you'd expect with a rebellious teen into fire and who happens to be gay stuck with fundamentalist Jesus freaks. They are very far apart. (I can't remember where Gilbert is, exactly in Australia, just that it is a long way away from Grace.)
It is overall rather uplifting, surprisingly so towards the end, you just have to get there? The animator's have a very dark sense of humor - to say the least. And the animation style kind of complements that? The color scheme unlike all the other movies (with the possible exception of Grommit) is beige, grey, black, soiled white, orange, yellow and spots of red. There's also dingy green and blue. I felt like I was looking at everything through a kind of dull lense? (I'm guessing this is due to the stop-motion clay and glass animation? I didn't notice it was glass - but they mention "glass blowers" in the credits - so clearly it's in there somewhere? There are a lot of windows in the film.)
I say more - I'd give away the movie. And I don't want to do that. I went in blind - completely blind. See above.
Here's a trailer, so you don't have to go into blind if you don't want to:
Trailer of Memoir of a Snail
Eh, the trailer was more uplifting than the movie. I understand why it was nominated, it's innovative. I've not seen anything quite like it, and it haunts me long after it ended. It's clever, intricately animated, and different. I'm just not sure I like it or want to recommend it?
How can you watch it? It's on AMC+ free with subscription, or for $4.99 via Amazon Prime, which is how I did it. Cheaper than a subscription.
2. Inside Out 2 - this apparently was the highest grossing film of 2024 (which says a lot about the film audience in 2024 although I'm not entirely sure what?). It took me three tries to get through this film. I get why it was nominated, I'm just not sure I'm the correct demographic for it? And I liked Inside Out 1 and Turning Red (which kind of tackles the same issues this one does) better - but that's just me.
What is it about? It's much like Turning Red in that it is about female puberty. Although I thought Turning Red handled it a little better? This film is a sequel to Inside Out and while it most likely would work better if you saw the first film? You could most likely figure it out without seeing it? It does give the audience a recap.
The lead character ("Riley") has become a teenager, and entered high school. She's no longer a kid. She has pimples. She has switched schools, and is trying out for the new school's hockey team. Her friends are going to a different school. And as a result - she's filled with all these new foreign emotions: anxiety, embarrassment, ennui, and envy. (Although I remember having all those emotions as a child - so I'm not sure why the animators think these come up when you hit puberty? But I digress.) The story is told mainly from the point of view of Riley's emotions. The villain (to the degree there is one) is Anxiety. That's probably why this film has done so well - it's a film in which the villain is Anxiety, and Riley's Anxiety takes over her body and her life to the extent that she has heart-pounding panic attack. Anxiety, a well-meaning sprite of an emotion, overwhelms the other emotions - kicking Joy, Disgust, Sadness, and Anger to the curb, and replacing them with Ennui, Embarrassment, and Envy, along with a widening chasm of sarcasm.
The gist of the film is kind of similar to Memoir of a Snail - we're all our emotions, and all our memories, and we need to except all of what we are and live forward not behind. Also, don't like anxiety overwhelm us.
Or depression (see Memoir of a Snail). You don't know what is around the next corner.
The animation style is familiar to anyone who has watched Pixar. But after seeing the other films, I think Pixar may need to up its game a bit? It's prettier than snail. Bright colors. The people are pretty. Most if not all the human characters are female, and well drawn. The emotions are the range and distinctive, with bright upbeat colors. If watching Snail felt like well watching through a dirty mud puddle or snail shell (which might have been deliberate and the point), Inside Out is like watching through a Rainbow of candy coated colors - which probably was also deliberate and the point. I thought it went on too long, and drug a bit. My attention kept wandering away from it. But it was moving towards the end, and delivered. I cried at the end of it - I admit that.
It's on Disney +, and recommended for ages 12 and up. It is not an independent film and was done by Pixar Studios which is part of Disney Animation Studios.
3. The Wild Robot - this is Dreamworks entry, distributor is Universal Studios.
It's a stunning film. And definitely a children's film. Ages 10 and up.
A bit long, but compelling. It concerns a robot that crash lands on an island that has no one but wild animals, birds, etc. It's science fiction.
Heartwarming. And the point of view is mainly the robot.
I think it's better to go into it blind, like I did?
It's computer animation or rather digitized animation (which has smoother look and feel than Pixar, also more realistic), reminds me of cell animation but has a 3D aspect to it, and quite lovely, although still looks like a Disney cartoon with talking animals. Somehow the robot manages to translate the animals languages, although I lost how it managed to translate the animals languages to each other? Maybe they already understood each other?
I'd have liked it better if the animals didn't speak - but then we wouldn't have voice actors like Bill Nighy, Pedro Pascale, Kit Connor and Mark Hamill voicing some of them. (Of course I didn't recognize any of their voices - because honestly, most people's voices aren't that distinctive to me?)
Also I think it's too long, it drug in places. But it is a beautiful film, uplifting and moving. With a lovely theme about community, environmental sustainability, family, taking care of others, and diversity, but mainly kindness.
I cried. I admit it. I also laughed here and there, not as much as I did with Memoir of a Snail - but this wasn't a comedy?
Wild Robot is available on Peacock for free with subscription.
***
So, now that I've seen all the Oscar films? Here's how I would rank them, although to be fair? They aren't really comparable. This is just a personal preference thing? Completely subjective. Because all the films are brilliant innovative pieces of animation in their own right, and artistic achievements. Of the films, I found the Memoir of the Snail and Flow to be the most surprising and innovative - they both haunt long afterwards. Flow I want to see again and adored.
On Television front, tried Poker Face created/directed by Rian Johnson, with the main show-runners being the ones who want to do the Buffy reboot. The pilot episode was okay, but didn't really blow me away. I agree with the folks who state that Natasha Lyon's character is a kind of female Columbo, but not quite as bright as Columbo, nor with the backup. I think Columbo worked better.
The setup is that Charlie Cale (Lyon's character) can tell if someone is lying, just not always why. Basically she can see through their poker face.
But she doesn't know why they are lying - so works to figure that out.
And pieces it together - kind of like Columbo did with various observations. It's the Sherlock Holmes Detective Trope - the detective's tick is they are keen observers of human behavior and figure out the crime based on this tick. It's also the Holmes trope - in that the Detective confronts the villain and tells them exactly how they figured it out. (I always found this part idiotic. I mean why would you confront the murderer with their crime and explain how they did it? To get a confession? Really? They could kill you. I can see someone who has some power behind them doing this - such as Columbo, but Charlie who is just a card shark who's banned from playing Poker Games?) It actually blows up in her face the first time she does it - and is the reason she's on the run. And I'm thinking, she could disappear without a trace if she wanted to? But no, she continues to do the same thing everywhere she goes.
I don't know if I'll stick with it or not? It's a bit too episodic for my taste. It did do well apparently - it only had one season. Aired in 2023.
Then I tried Northern Exposure on Amazon Prime. Unlike Buffy, it does not hold up well. Granted it was filmed in the mid-1990s. I suppose it depends on how you view it? But the Native Americans are used as comic relief, and Joel is ...well beyond sexist in how he relates to the women in the town. We also have the whole Shelly (Miss America who is in her early twenties) being fought over by two men old enough to be her grandfather.
I looked it up? It much like Ally McBeal derailed in its final seasons (basically seasons 4-5). It is really hard for a television show to make it past five seasons or to five seasons apparently. I vaguely remember giving up on it 1995. The reason it derailed was the same one that Ally did, writer turn-over and actor turn-over due to back stage disputes. Except Northern Exposure's dispute was also a legal one - apparently the producers got sued for stealing another writer's idea and handing to two different writers - without their knowledge. (I'm surprised that got held up in court - a concept or idea isn't technically speaking copyrightable? But I guess if you can prove it?) What was the idea? It's not what you might think? It's not that a Jewish doctor moves to Alaska and sets up a Practice, no, it's an Italian American doctor gets a job in a remote town in the South and starts a practice. (Why would a judge consider that original? The fish out of water trope didn't originate with Northern Exposure or with this guy's idea. Actually I think Michael J Fox played it. He did, in 1991, it was called Doc Hollywood, and the idea was : "a young doctor travels across country for a job interview and gets stuck there working in its hospital for 8 days). Which I guess was this guy's idea?
What was that Judge smoking?
no subject
Date: 2025-02-19 05:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-02-20 02:48 am (UTC)Snails have a metaphorical meaning - like a hermit crab - it's the idea of someone pulling into their shell and living in it, and pulling everything in with them. They don't live outside of their shell.
The main character has pulled into herself like a snail - and it's how she sees herself - it's not a necessarily accurate view - she's an unreliable narrator.
no subject
Date: 2025-02-20 09:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-02-21 12:35 am (UTC)Like I said above, it's not about a snail or even an naturalist who is an expert on snails. It's not a nature doc at all.
It's about a lonely Australian girl who collects snails, and refers to herself as a snail and even has a snail hat. I wouldn't call her an expert by any stretch of the imagination. In fact I don't think she's educated? She's into stop motion animation and snail collecting.
no subject
Date: 2025-02-20 03:20 am (UTC)Your comment about Ally McBeal reminded me about how L.A. Law has had some big changes across seasons due to changing show runners (and relatedly cast additions and departures). I remember watching McBeal at the time but quit after a few seasons. I can't say I remember it well at all now.
no subject
Date: 2025-02-21 01:00 am (UTC)Yup, most television shows have massive writing and cast departures around the 3-5th seasons. Let's face it Television is grueling - and actors/writers get burned out and want to move on. Also a lot of those television show work environments are toxic. The 90s and early 00s was notorious for toxic sets. Whedon wasn't wrong when he said that Buffy was actually fairly mild in comparison. Georgia (the second female lead) left Ally McBeal in S4, because she got tired of being pressured to be thin. And SNL was notorious for it's problems, as was Moonlighting.
The actors want a prime time gig - they get it and after two seasons - they are hunting the exit ramp or to renegotiate their contract. David Chase apparently did in Northern Exposure - he hated the concept.
I could never get into Ally McBeal - I'd recently graduated from law school, and was working at the evil library reference company in NYC at the time. And Ally annoyed the heck out of me. Also the series was hyper-focused on Ally's romantic relationships and sexual harassment. I tried it again - and no, I couldn't get past episode four.
While I am randomly re-watching Buffy episodes and it still holds up. Campy in places, but it has a quippy sense of humor and self-deprecating wit that is lacking in a lot of series of that period. Now, you see it, but not then.