(no subject)
Mar. 4th, 2014 10:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1) Tried to watch the flick Jack Reacher based on the best-selling novels by Lee Childs. And...I can't help but think it would have worked better if someone similar to Clint Eastwood had been cast in the lead. Or Liam Neeson. Tom Cruise...just was a little too stiff and not all that convincing. It was also extremely violent, particularly against women, and
chauvinistic. And not well enough written for me to excuse these problems. Plus, I'm sort the plot quite works. As an aside, Michael Raymond James (Neal Cassidy/Baelfire from OUAT) was in it as a low-life bad guy - who in a gross scene that I fast-forwarded through - is forced to bite off the fingers on his left hand or get shot dead. I have no clue which occurred...I'm guessing he got shot dead. I fast-forwarded.
Anyhow gave up. It's going back tomorrow. I'm going to see if I can netflix to send me Catching Fire or Thor: The Dark World for the weekend. I still have Mud and The Sessions to watch. Need something light to off-set it.
2. Saw some intriguing OUAT spoilers, which are more teasers and very vague:
* According to an interview with Jennifer Morrison in TV Guide: The second half of the season is about figuring out who created a second curse. Also according to recent teasing trailers, the residents of the Enchanted Forest find themselves back in Storybrook again.
So the question is who did it and why?
* She also stated two other interesting tid-bits:
1. Emma is involved with a brand new love interest (I bet money he's played by Christopher Gorham of Ugly Betty and Covert Affairs...another actor that I actually adore). Someone who appears to be stable and a good father to Henry. (Except he isn't who he appears.) [It's probably a good thing that I stopped shipping characters last year - not wise in serial television shows.]
2. The new villain is the worst and scariest they've had to date, because no one can figure out her agenda.
* Matt Roush online spoilers - suggested that Neal/Baelfire may have caused the second curse or possibly found the new villain. Baelfire/Neal is desperate to get back to his family, and is frustrated at being stuck in the Enchanted Forest again. Will he go down the path his father did to get back to them? He's found himself in the same situation that Rumplestilskin had.
* Roush also states that Rumplestilskin's fate will be disclosed eventually.
3. Tired of the bitter temperatures. But there appears to be slight warming trend towards the weekend...we'll reach 46 on Saturday. Dry and cold.
4. True Detective is getting the same critical buzz that Breaking Bad did. I keep wondering the same thing - why are most of the best written television series also the most violent and male centric? I find this grating. Although there are a few non-violent, female centric well-written series...The Good Wife comes to mind. I'm sure there are others that I just can't think of at the moment.
True Detective is also getting some critical backlash from various sectors. (Such as Emily Nussbaum of The New Yorker - who I honestly think has a bit of stick up her butt, she gave Carol Gilligan's Birth of Desire a horrific review as well. ) Critics aren't necessarily reliable.
At its heart True Detective is a character study of two homicide detectives and a case they've been drug in and out of for 17 years. It's pure noire - so dark and edgy and male centric, much like Breaking Bad and The Wire tended to be. I don't think it is quite as well written as those series, but that's just me. And I have to admit that I enjoy Justified and Game of Thrones a great deal more.
But as a character study - True Detective is quite brilliant in places. It's compact, atmospheric, and gritty. With lots of twists and turns. So while I understand the backlash, I think the criticism is ill-placed. They are criticizing the series for being what it is.
A noir detective show focusing on two damaged and complex white southern men. You can't expect political correctness or feminism from this sort of series. We're in the pov of the two white guys. That said, it does not show the two white guys in a positive light, nor does it justify their actions. So, no, I wouldn't call it misogynistic or chauvinistic like say Jack Reacher. And the violence has a definite point - it's not overdone. Everything in this series is about well the two lead characters and their journey through their own individual hells.
chauvinistic. And not well enough written for me to excuse these problems. Plus, I'm sort the plot quite works. As an aside, Michael Raymond James (Neal Cassidy/Baelfire from OUAT) was in it as a low-life bad guy - who in a gross scene that I fast-forwarded through - is forced to bite off the fingers on his left hand or get shot dead. I have no clue which occurred...I'm guessing he got shot dead. I fast-forwarded.
Anyhow gave up. It's going back tomorrow. I'm going to see if I can netflix to send me Catching Fire or Thor: The Dark World for the weekend. I still have Mud and The Sessions to watch. Need something light to off-set it.
2. Saw some intriguing OUAT spoilers, which are more teasers and very vague:
* According to an interview with Jennifer Morrison in TV Guide: The second half of the season is about figuring out who created a second curse. Also according to recent teasing trailers, the residents of the Enchanted Forest find themselves back in Storybrook again.
So the question is who did it and why?
* She also stated two other interesting tid-bits:
1. Emma is involved with a brand new love interest (I bet money he's played by Christopher Gorham of Ugly Betty and Covert Affairs...another actor that I actually adore). Someone who appears to be stable and a good father to Henry. (Except he isn't who he appears.) [It's probably a good thing that I stopped shipping characters last year - not wise in serial television shows.]
2. The new villain is the worst and scariest they've had to date, because no one can figure out her agenda.
* Matt Roush online spoilers - suggested that Neal/Baelfire may have caused the second curse or possibly found the new villain. Baelfire/Neal is desperate to get back to his family, and is frustrated at being stuck in the Enchanted Forest again. Will he go down the path his father did to get back to them? He's found himself in the same situation that Rumplestilskin had.
* Roush also states that Rumplestilskin's fate will be disclosed eventually.
3. Tired of the bitter temperatures. But there appears to be slight warming trend towards the weekend...we'll reach 46 on Saturday. Dry and cold.
4. True Detective is getting the same critical buzz that Breaking Bad did. I keep wondering the same thing - why are most of the best written television series also the most violent and male centric? I find this grating. Although there are a few non-violent, female centric well-written series...The Good Wife comes to mind. I'm sure there are others that I just can't think of at the moment.
True Detective is also getting some critical backlash from various sectors. (Such as Emily Nussbaum of The New Yorker - who I honestly think has a bit of stick up her butt, she gave Carol Gilligan's Birth of Desire a horrific review as well. ) Critics aren't necessarily reliable.
At its heart True Detective is a character study of two homicide detectives and a case they've been drug in and out of for 17 years. It's pure noire - so dark and edgy and male centric, much like Breaking Bad and The Wire tended to be. I don't think it is quite as well written as those series, but that's just me. And I have to admit that I enjoy Justified and Game of Thrones a great deal more.
But as a character study - True Detective is quite brilliant in places. It's compact, atmospheric, and gritty. With lots of twists and turns. So while I understand the backlash, I think the criticism is ill-placed. They are criticizing the series for being what it is.
A noir detective show focusing on two damaged and complex white southern men. You can't expect political correctness or feminism from this sort of series. We're in the pov of the two white guys. That said, it does not show the two white guys in a positive light, nor does it justify their actions. So, no, I wouldn't call it misogynistic or chauvinistic like say Jack Reacher. And the violence has a definite point - it's not overdone. Everything in this series is about well the two lead characters and their journey through their own individual hells.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-03-05 12:46 pm (UTC)Mmm that little show that brought us together, Buffy the Vampire Slayer? ;- )
But yeah there aren't many great tv shows focusing on females or even with female characters as important as the male ones. Terminator The Sarah Connor Chronicles was well written and female-centric, BSG had many very important female characters (Laura, Kara, Caprica Six), but there are the exceptions. I think it's because most writers are males and it isn't easy for them to write female characters, so the world they create is mostly male-oriented. The Sopranos or Deadwood were very male centric too (Milch even admitted that writing female characters was not his cup of tea). BTW I have finished The Sopranos AT LAST and will post about it soon.
Among the current great tv shows, and apart from The Good Wife, I'd say that Mad Men might be the most balanced one right now, thanks to Peggy's journey, and Joan's popularity. At least it's less male centric than The Sopranos, even though the filiation is obvious.
And so is The Americans.
Justified is all about a men's world (except during season 2!) and Hannibal is very male centric as well. They are still great tv shows.
Have you seen Rectify? The lead is a male and there are more male characters but there are two important female characters in the supporting cast.
But I agree with you about TD and Nussbaum's criticism. I read her article and disagreed (and frankly when she said that Top of The Lake was better than TD it made me scream!). She sounds like one of those viewers whose reviews are based on what they would have liked to see rather than on what was showed on screen...
no subject
Date: 2014-03-05 11:26 pm (UTC)Can't comment on Top of the Lake - since I didn't see it. (I don't get the Sundance Channel - which aired both Rectify and Top of the Lake. Too many channels, too many tv shows, no time or money for that matter.)
I also think there's a danger in judging something based purely on its subject matter. Which she appears to be doing here, although I admittedly scanned the review. I mean, I don't like Hannibal, but at least I'm honest enough to admit that I dislike it because of the subject matter, not because of the writing. It's like watching Breaking Bad and criticizing it for being about a guy with cancer who becomes a meth dealer. I mean you knew going in that was what it was about. Or criticizing 12 Years a Slave for being about Slavery.
It is interesting that outside of The Good Wife, Friday Night Lights, possibly Call the Midwife and Mad Men, I can't think of many critically acclaimed "recent" dramas that were not extremely violent. Doesn't mean they don't exist...just can't think of them or haven't seen them.
I don't think it's that there are necessarily more male writers - there aren't. It's that there are more men in power at network's, studios, and corporations funding the tv shows. And they often green-light dramas that are high in action, extremely violent, and male pov. They basically want validation in their entertainment choices - many people do. The fact that it is violence, torture, and cruelty...
I don't mind so much that there are violent tv shows on, hey I watch some of them, but that there are so frigging many. It's gotten to the point that I can no longer watch half of them. After a while - I feel like I'm being hammered by violence.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-06 09:23 am (UTC)I don't think it's that there are necessarily more male writers - there aren't.
All the creators/writers of the most critically acclaimed tv shows were men, not women. I am not saying that women are not capable of creating quality television, but my point was that it isn't surprising to have male pov in those brillant shows written/created by men.
There's physical violence and psychological violence. Mad Men is violent in its own way...Hannibal is al about psychological violence.
Sherlock isn't really violent but it's British.
American tv dramas tend to be violence oriented, indeed. It's a cliché to say that the USA are fascinated by crime, but television confirms it.