![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. The Doctor Who 50th Anniversary Made for Television movie : An Adventure Across Space and Time exceeded expectations. It's a touching film about the making of a television series back in the 1960s, in Great Britain with the BBC or ITV (I wasn't quite sure which and not sure it matters.)[ETA: Apparently this was a big deal, the executive producer of tv series such as The Avengers (the Emma Peel spy series, not the Marvel comic book or the cooler version) was brought in from ITV to recreate his success at the BBC and do similar programming. ] The story centers on William Hartnett, an aging British Character actor who has been relegated to supporting roles in military television series and films. He is charmed into agreeing to play the title role in a half-hour science fiction television series aimed at children and the young male demographic - which apparently was as attractive and difficult to acquire back then, and in Britain no less, as it is now. Actually the pitch for "Doctor Who" reminds me a little bit of Marvel's pitch for Marvel:Agents of Shield - an action-adventure children's show that appeals to both kids and the male demo.
Except I think the BBC did a better job back in the 1960s. They focused on the writing and casting, and less on the special effects. In fact, their sets were notoriously bad. As the much-aggrieved director states - that set is smaller than a broom closet, and it gets easily overheated, plus the fire alarm system is so delicate - the sprinklers will go off without warning. Which they did - right in the middle of filming. Yet the series, against all odds, was charming and took off. (That's not a spoiler - since this is the 50th Anniversary Special, by the way.)
It's an underdog story based on real events. But there's depth to it - the actor who plays William Harltnett, is quite good. And yes, we've seen him before. He played the caretaker in the Harry Potter films, the pharmacy/grocery store owner in Broadchurch, and Lord Walder Frey in Game of Thrones. Here, he's almost unrecognizable and turns out to be the heart of the movie. Depicting how engrossed an actor can become in a role, and how we all think or rather hope we are irreplaceable in our work, yet know, disappointingly enough that we aren't. He pours his heart and soul into a role that at the end of the day - can go on and on and on without him. Giving credence to the line: "You are not defined by your career or by your roles, nor are they defined by you." Yet, his work is immortalized and without him, the series may never have started.
It's a bittersweet film in that while the Doctor is immortal, the man who portrayed him was not. And the role did not die with him. And many people followed. It's the actor's complaint in a way - each role they play can be played by many others...it's never really theirs. But I think that's true of all art in a way - once it is out there, it stops belonging to those who created it no matter how much they may wish and profess otherwise...in time it will outlive them, if they are lucky, and become another's story.
At any rate - if you get the chance to see it or can find it, I highly recommend. You do not need to be a fan of Doctor Who or for that matter have seen the series to enjoy it, although there are a few tid-bits littered throughout that are clearly directed towards fans of the series, which would most likely make no sense to anyone who has not seen it.
2. According to Entertainment Weekly, which isn't exactly the most reliable source in the universe, Sweden in lieu of the MPAA rating system has adopted the Bechdel rating system for films - ie. does the film have at least two women characters, do they meet, and do they have a conversation that has zip to do with the male character or romantic love interest. If this is true? I don't know about you, but I'm starting to want to move to Sweden. [ETA: Apparently EW really isn't that reliable - in reality it's just one small theater in Sweden that's doing this. But hey, that wouldn't make as interesting a blurb, now would it? EW does love to exaggerate...]
In other news on MPAA ratings - which again, according to Entertainment Weekly, represents Middle-America Parents - an R rating is based on how many times the word "fuck" is used in a film or the use of sexually derived swear words. If it is used twice - the film gets an R rating. However, if it is not used at all - but buildings are blown-up, people are dismembered or tortured, and lots of people killed in a brutal fashion - that gets a PG-13 rating. Because apparently parents in Middle America do not care if their teenagers or kids over the age of 13 watch a lot of explicit violence on the television and in the movies. But, whoa...no words like fuck or sex scenes please.
This conversation came up when the MPAA trounced the Judi Dench/Steven Coogan heartwarming drama about an Irish Woman hunting her long lost son with an R rating (Philomena) - because they used the word "fuck" twice. While "The Dark Knight Rises" - possibly amongst the most violent films I've seen, was handed a PG-13 rating. Remember this is the film - which had a gunman fire on an unsuspecting audience when it premiered in Colorado in 2012. Now, as a parent, which film would you take your kids too? The heartwarming saga with Judi Dench, or the violent Batman film?
Sorry to say the filmmakers couldn't get the MPAA to budge on the subject. Because surveys of households in Middle America state that most parents do not want the word "fuck" in a PG-13 film, but hey - killing people isn't a problem. [ETA: Update, apparently they did get them to budge and Philomena won it's PG-13 rating upon appeal.]
I don't know about you? But this just makes me want to move to Sweden even more. Maybe I can retire there?
3. James Marsters has finally written his Spike comic book. First a caveat, while I was admittedly a Spike fan, I've since lost all interest in the character and the actor. I've finally moved on.
This comic in short is a little bit too late to grab my interest. If he'd written it say five years ago? Yeah sure. Now...meh. (Should be noted that I was amongst the minority of fans who was satisfied with Bryan Lynch's take on the character and the series and actually preferred his version to Dark Horse and Whedon's - which jarred greatly with my love and perception of the tv series. This is worth bearing in mind - since if you were the opposite, you may view things differently.)
That said, I don't think the comic is going to appeal to most Spike fans. I could be wrong about that of course. I know there are Spike fans still wandering about, some are on my flist. Granted none of them have posted about Spike recently, but they could be doing it on Tumblr. (So flist? Are you interested in the Spike comic? Yay or Nay?)
My two cents for what it's worth? Marsters idea didn't impress me that much when I was obsessed with the character. I think we sort of saw the character differently, which is weird, considering he portrayed it. But here's the thing about film and television performances - the actor really doesn't have as big a role in how the character is conveyed as you might think. The writer's, director's, make-up, camera-men and women, stunt doubles, and editors do. There's a lot that we see in regards to the character that the actor doesn't.
Unless he watches the show - which I doubt, because seriously most don't watch their own performances or the series - they put it out of their heads. So screen actors, ironically, are the least reliable when it comes to figuring out character motivation or how the character comes across on screen.
So, I'll be passing on this for all the reasons above. Am curious though if it's grabbing anyone else's interest.
Except I think the BBC did a better job back in the 1960s. They focused on the writing and casting, and less on the special effects. In fact, their sets were notoriously bad. As the much-aggrieved director states - that set is smaller than a broom closet, and it gets easily overheated, plus the fire alarm system is so delicate - the sprinklers will go off without warning. Which they did - right in the middle of filming. Yet the series, against all odds, was charming and took off. (That's not a spoiler - since this is the 50th Anniversary Special, by the way.)
It's an underdog story based on real events. But there's depth to it - the actor who plays William Harltnett, is quite good. And yes, we've seen him before. He played the caretaker in the Harry Potter films, the pharmacy/grocery store owner in Broadchurch, and Lord Walder Frey in Game of Thrones. Here, he's almost unrecognizable and turns out to be the heart of the movie. Depicting how engrossed an actor can become in a role, and how we all think or rather hope we are irreplaceable in our work, yet know, disappointingly enough that we aren't. He pours his heart and soul into a role that at the end of the day - can go on and on and on without him. Giving credence to the line: "You are not defined by your career or by your roles, nor are they defined by you." Yet, his work is immortalized and without him, the series may never have started.
It's a bittersweet film in that while the Doctor is immortal, the man who portrayed him was not. And the role did not die with him. And many people followed. It's the actor's complaint in a way - each role they play can be played by many others...it's never really theirs. But I think that's true of all art in a way - once it is out there, it stops belonging to those who created it no matter how much they may wish and profess otherwise...in time it will outlive them, if they are lucky, and become another's story.
At any rate - if you get the chance to see it or can find it, I highly recommend. You do not need to be a fan of Doctor Who or for that matter have seen the series to enjoy it, although there are a few tid-bits littered throughout that are clearly directed towards fans of the series, which would most likely make no sense to anyone who has not seen it.
2. According to Entertainment Weekly, which isn't exactly the most reliable source in the universe, Sweden in lieu of the MPAA rating system has adopted the Bechdel rating system for films - ie. does the film have at least two women characters, do they meet, and do they have a conversation that has zip to do with the male character or romantic love interest. If this is true? I don't know about you, but I'm starting to want to move to Sweden. [ETA: Apparently EW really isn't that reliable - in reality it's just one small theater in Sweden that's doing this. But hey, that wouldn't make as interesting a blurb, now would it? EW does love to exaggerate...]
In other news on MPAA ratings - which again, according to Entertainment Weekly, represents Middle-America Parents - an R rating is based on how many times the word "fuck" is used in a film or the use of sexually derived swear words. If it is used twice - the film gets an R rating. However, if it is not used at all - but buildings are blown-up, people are dismembered or tortured, and lots of people killed in a brutal fashion - that gets a PG-13 rating. Because apparently parents in Middle America do not care if their teenagers or kids over the age of 13 watch a lot of explicit violence on the television and in the movies. But, whoa...no words like fuck or sex scenes please.
This conversation came up when the MPAA trounced the Judi Dench/Steven Coogan heartwarming drama about an Irish Woman hunting her long lost son with an R rating (Philomena) - because they used the word "fuck" twice. While "The Dark Knight Rises" - possibly amongst the most violent films I've seen, was handed a PG-13 rating. Remember this is the film - which had a gunman fire on an unsuspecting audience when it premiered in Colorado in 2012. Now, as a parent, which film would you take your kids too? The heartwarming saga with Judi Dench, or the violent Batman film?
Sorry to say the filmmakers couldn't get the MPAA to budge on the subject. Because surveys of households in Middle America state that most parents do not want the word "fuck" in a PG-13 film, but hey - killing people isn't a problem. [ETA: Update, apparently they did get them to budge and Philomena won it's PG-13 rating upon appeal.]
I don't know about you? But this just makes me want to move to Sweden even more. Maybe I can retire there?
3. James Marsters has finally written his Spike comic book. First a caveat, while I was admittedly a Spike fan, I've since lost all interest in the character and the actor. I've finally moved on.
This comic in short is a little bit too late to grab my interest. If he'd written it say five years ago? Yeah sure. Now...meh. (Should be noted that I was amongst the minority of fans who was satisfied with Bryan Lynch's take on the character and the series and actually preferred his version to Dark Horse and Whedon's - which jarred greatly with my love and perception of the tv series. This is worth bearing in mind - since if you were the opposite, you may view things differently.)
That said, I don't think the comic is going to appeal to most Spike fans. I could be wrong about that of course. I know there are Spike fans still wandering about, some are on my flist. Granted none of them have posted about Spike recently, but they could be doing it on Tumblr. (So flist? Are you interested in the Spike comic? Yay or Nay?)
My two cents for what it's worth? Marsters idea didn't impress me that much when I was obsessed with the character. I think we sort of saw the character differently, which is weird, considering he portrayed it. But here's the thing about film and television performances - the actor really doesn't have as big a role in how the character is conveyed as you might think. The writer's, director's, make-up, camera-men and women, stunt doubles, and editors do. There's a lot that we see in regards to the character that the actor doesn't.
Unless he watches the show - which I doubt, because seriously most don't watch their own performances or the series - they put it out of their heads. So screen actors, ironically, are the least reliable when it comes to figuring out character motivation or how the character comes across on screen.
So, I'll be passing on this for all the reasons above. Am curious though if it's grabbing anyone else's interest.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-11-24 01:16 am (UTC)2. Okay this is what EW states - and it's just a brief blurb on page 52 of the print subscription.
"Hollywood: Just Not that Into Women"
Swedish cinemas have announced a new ratings system that uses the Bechdel Test, devised by graphic novelist Alison Bechdel, to evaluate how substantial female characters are. Star Wars, Pulp Fiction, and most Harry Potter movies would flunk it. Here we apply the test to this year's biggest hits, ranked in order of box office.
Then they do a ranking: Iron Man through World War Z, with Pass/Fail at the end.
Good to know EW continues to be unreliable in this regard. It really is just a hype machine - or a marketing venue now. Depressing. I miss Premiere.
Thanks for the response - I was hoping you would - because I was curious to see how far off the mark they were.
Your rating system made more sense than ours.
no subject
Date: 2013-11-24 01:27 am (UTC)It's actually rather fun watching the movie industry squirm every time the ratings bureau get their stamp out.
"But... there are no boobs in this movie! And no bad words at all! Why on Earth would you ban children from seeing it?"
"Dude, every beach here is topless and our most well-known young adult movie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucking_%C3%85m%C3%A5l) has the word 'Fucking' in the title. You're ripping people's heads off in slow motion, you don't get to show that to 11-year-olds, deal with it."
ETA: For the record, here's (http://www.svenskabio.se/index.php?id=4) the Swedish rating system:
- All ages; everyone gets to see it.
- 7 and up; you need to be 7 or in the company of an adult
- 11 and up; you need to be 11 or in the company of an adult
- 15 and up; you need to be 15, regardless of company. Letting someone under 15 in is forbidden by law.
no subject
Date: 2013-11-24 03:04 am (UTC)"But... there are no boobs in this movie! And no bad words at all! Why on Earth would you ban children from seeing it?"
"Dude, every beach here is topless and our most well-known young adult movie has the word 'Fucking' in the title. You're ripping people's heads off in slow motion, you don't get to show that to 11-year-olds, deal with it."
LOL! It's the opposite here.
Oh dear there are boobs and bad words...we can't, we can't..
but hey ripping people's heads off in slow motion, it's not like its real or anything - we can show little kids that, no problemo.
Your ratings system is interesting. Ours in stark contrast looks something like this:
http://www.mpaa.org/ratings/what-each-rating-means
G = all ages admitted
PG = parental guidance suggested, some material may be not suitable for children, (parents should check it out first before letting their kids see it, but everyone is admitted)
PG-13 = parental guidance strongly cautioned - some material may be inappropriate for children under 13 - Still not restricted. (Actually, I think Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom was responsible for the PG-13 category, it popped up in the early 1980s, didn't exist before then.)
R - restricted = Children under 17 require an accompanying parent or guardian and it's not suitable to bring young children (although people always do...and a rite of passage is sneaking into these films.)
NC-17 = no one 17 and under permitted in the theater. You have to be older than 17 to enter. (this is considered the kiss of death for movies in the US. They hate getting this rating. Some will ask for "no rating" in lieu of it.)
(Keep in mind in the US in many states (not all) you have to be at least 18 to drink, vote, marry, or drive. Most states set legal drinking age at 21, and some allow driving at 16 or 15. Voting is 18. So adult in the US is considered 18.)