Spontaneous Musings

Finished re-watching Buffy S4 and Angel S1 yesterday, with the iconic episodes "Restless" (Buffy S4) and "To Shanshu in LA" (Angel S1), which were both written and directed by the principle show-runner creator of each series, Joss Whedon and David Greenwalt respectfully.

Both date rather well for the most part, with a few crucial exceptions (the white male writers of Northern European descent have some decidedly judgmental stereotypes about Black and African culture that regrettably end up on screen and are kind of racist) - Gunn and the First Slayer...ugh.

Upon re-watching I picked up on the flaws in the writing, and of the two, I think Greenwalt's is easier to follow and more engrossing, while Whedon's is a bit more on the self-indulgent side (if you doubt Whedon's creativity, sizable ego, or his power on that show - just watch Restless), far more ambitious, and drags a bit. Even if Whedon's is much more memorable and kind of a game-changer in television writing.

Can you skip over Restless and still enjoy the series? Absolutely. It's a stand-alone episode, filled with foreshadowing, but so vaguely and confusingly displayed, that you are almost better off not thinking too much about it? People did at the time (myself included) - and came up with far better plots than the writer did or even imagined, which is never a good thing and alas one of the pitfalls of reading and writing fanfic while a series is airing, and before it's been completed. It's almost better to read it after the fact (which I seldom do) but there you go.

To Shanshu in LA on the other hand is kind of required to understand what is happening in Angel. It's not a skippable episode, and I would state one of the anchors of the series? There's a handful of episodes in Angel S1 that you need to watch to understand what is happening, the arc of the characters, etc. It is not a stand-a-alone, which is why David Greenwalt wrote and directed it. The only problem with it - is I'm not sure Greenwalt knows whether he is writing noir or a classic hero story or both? It's a confusing episode. Because it seems fairly clear from the ending, just as it did from the ending of Blind Date (the episode before it) - that the Senior Partners are gleeful with the result, and busy rewarding both Lindsey and Holland Mathers for executing it. Lilah is just along for the ride.

I think Greenwalt is attempting to do two things here? Hoodwink/mislead the audience and our heroes, while at the same time get across what the villains are doing and how they succeed. Plus, be able to get across to the audience the twist or the mislead upon completion of the series - so if someone were to re-watch it after seeing S5, they'd get it. And that's really hard to pull off well, without a few confusing plot holes. (Especially with the constant turn-over in writers and show-runners. But Whedon was most likely the instigator of the mislead, as was Minear.) It's more coherent than Restless, but then just about anything in either series is? And overall, I'd say Greenwalt was slightly more successful in the mislead than Whedon was in Restless, although it's not real clear Whedon knew what he was doing in Restless. Or if he was, he didn't do a good job of communicating that to anyone else?

Take-aways and Reviews of the two upon re-watching years later, are below:

Restless - written & directed by Joss Whedon (who wrote about four-five episodes per season in the first four-five seasons, and often the first episode and the last episode, this is common with show-runners of broadcast television shows with large team of writers and 22 episodes).

There's a dream sequence episode in Dark Winds S3, where the lead character Joe Leaphorn is wrestling with his own inner demons, and goes through this confusing dream sequence in the desert - while being attacked by someone that he believes is a monster in reality. The dream sequence finally gets across to him, as he figures out who killed a priest in his distant past during it, that there are no monsters, just men. And the thing fighting him the desert isn't a monster, but a man.

Restless is kind of similar set up? ( Read more... )

Overall, an okay episode? I kept falling asleep during it yesterday and found it, as I always find dreams shown in art and media - to be mentally exhausting and exhilarating at the same time.

To Shanshu in LA - written and directed by David Greenwalt (who was technically the show-runner of Angel, with oversight by Whedon).

Before Angel the Series, there was another cult noirish vampire detective series known as Nick at Night and later Forever Knight. It was about a Vampire who solved cases, while dealing with his creators. Moonlight reminds me a lot of Forever Knight. Angel the Series is kind of merger of Forever Knight (a Canadian 1980/early 90s series) and Kojack the Night Stalker (which was a cult show in the 1960s). It is at its heart - a noir or dark anti-hero series about a Vampire and his friends attempting to help people, and solve crimes, for a fee. Notably, a big difference between Angel Investigations and the Scooby Gange - is Angel is "paid". Often with big checks by folks who can afford it. Up until To Shanshu in LA? I'd say Angel the Series was very similar to Forever Night, Nick at Knight (earlier version of Forever Knight) and Kojack the Night Stalker. After that it goes in another direction entirely.

The beginning of the episode, two things happen worth noting. ( Read more... )

Overall a good episode, if a bit clunky and confusing in places. I did enjoy it more than Restless, in that I stayed awake during it.

***

Now that I've finished my rewatch of Angel S1 and Buffy S4, I'd say they were both a mixed bag? Buffy's stand-a-alones are better, while Angel's arc episodes are better.

( Buffy S4 Rewatch Over-view, cut for length )

If you really dislike S4, and preferred S1-3, and love those seasons and their narrative framework, setting, etc, then, you probably are better off sticking with the first three seasons and not continuing with the series. If however, you were like me, and loved aspects of S4, then yes, it gets better as we go. And is a very different series post-S4.

Takeaways?
( Read more... )

Angel S1 overview.

Better than I remembered. Less skippable episodes than I recalled, although they are there. It is more noirish than I thought. And dives deep into many noir tropes. Every single episode has a dark twist, some better than others.

Also the characters are well developed, and more likable and relatable here than they were on Buffy. Angel, Wes, and Cordelia are far more developed and more three dimensional. We get inside each's point of view. And they are given room to breath and develop that they never had on the other show, too busy competing for screen time.

The writers clearly aren't good at the stealth anthology or case of the week format, and by the end of the season give into serial for the most part. A recurring theme with this series.

WRH may be among the best villains in television. They work on multiple levels, the evil law firm on speed. It's a trope that has been done repeatedly of course, but the Angel writers kind of run with it and take it to new lows. And they keep with the noir themes and landscape - Angel is the classic Noir anti-hero, along with Wes and Cordelia.

I'm looking forward to rewatching S2, which I've mostly forgotten.

Well, the Meclizine is kind of helping? No nausea. But still feel out off-balance. I'm fine, if I sit straight without moving my head too much - particularly not up or down. Side to side is fine. It's still congested. And the weather shift make it worse.

Because I was home sick today and couldn't do anything but watch television, I finished the Newman/Woodward Documentary airing on HBO Max (And according to my Aunt, on Amazon Prime). A couple of caveats? This is neither a memoir nor a biography in the traditional sense of the word, so viewers going into it with the expectations of getting what we'd normally get in either - will be sorely disappointed. The documentary doesn't start with either's childhood for example - it starts with Ethan Hawk on Zoom telling a bunch of his contemporaries that he's been tasked with this project, and requires their help in accomplishing it. He tells them that Newman dictated all these tapes to his friend, then for some unknown reason, destroyed them. But his friend had already transcribed all the tapes prior to their destruction. Then the documentary launches into Newman and Woodward's first major roles and introduction into acting and how they originally met. It's worth keeping in mind that this is documentary done by an actor and director, who was hired by Newmans' kids to do it, and enlists fellow actors and directors to aid him.

( Read more... )
At the end, this documentary is a documentary of the Woodward and Newman relationship to each other, their kids, and their professions and the effect it had on those around them. It's not a memoir or a biography.

Haven't accomplished much this weekend. It's been cool, and mostly overcast anyhow. I did spend a lot of time looking out on the treetops outside my living room window, and listening to actor podcasts.

The news, sigh. I don't know about you? But it is depressing me. And kind of makes me route for a sizable meteor, a tornado, or a green dragon to take out Washington, DC. Never felt that way before. I'm actually terrified of reading the news. Is it just me or has the world just gotten scarier since technology took off? Bad techies. Life would have been so much better if we paid techies and marketing folks fifty cents an hour or very little at all, and sanitation workers, tree planters, forest rangers, and climate change scientist more.

Reviews

1. Parable of the Sower by Octavia Butler : I finished this on Friday. It took me forever, and I'm not sure I'd recommend reading it now? It's a science fiction novel about the consequences of climate change, with the federal government selling off lands to corporations resulting in societal collapse in the year 2025. A group of hardy and diverse souls decide to walk north to find land, jobs, or a place to live and pick up people along the way. Butler focuses on community building and kindness of strangers. While there is violence earlier in the novel, towards the end, it is less so.

The novel ends in the year 2027, and the next one Parable of the Talents begins in 2032, with flashbacks.

There's a romance, between the 18 year old heroine and a fifty-seven year old man in the novel that I found kind of odd, considering I'm fifty-eight.
Also the novel was published in 1992, and takes place in 2025-2027, so...

Some of the things in the novel she gets right about the future - we do have the beginnings of climate change. California is suffering from heat waves and wild fires. We do have an insane federal government that is trying to cater to corporations. What we don't quite have yet is slave labor, keep in mind this is Octavia Butler - and most of her novels tended to focus on slave labor, mainly because she was an African-American Female Science Fiction Writer in the 20th Century. Also, Butler doesn't quite understand state government. So, she gets an alarming amount right, but also quite a bit wrong, which gives me hope at least, if only a smattering.

It's a scarier book now than I think it was when it was originally published. And perhaps a more timely one. I recommend but with the caveat that it is unnerving, and disturbing in spots. I have the sequel, but am taking a break from it. It was slow going. I may like it once the current administration in DC is gone. Not sure I can read more of it now - hits a little too close to home and I'm terrified enough by the news.

2. Murderbot - started watching on Apple + and it's better than expected. It seems to follow the novels rather closely and Alexander Starsgaard is pitch perfect casting for the Murderbot. It's funny in places and charming in others, just like the novellas were. Murderbot is adapted from the novella All Systems Collapse along with the other novellas in the Murderbot series by Martha Wells, which were initially published as e-books and audio books several years ago.

It has a widely diverse cast, and focuses on a group of hippie research scientists/geologists who purchase a cheap refurbished security protocol bot to take with them to a planet for a research expedition. The Corporations who control the rim planets they are visiting, require that they take a bot with them, so they take the cheapest available, Murderbot.

Murderbot - which is what the Bot calls itself, the government name is security unit, has hacked into its own system and basically watches television most of the time, when it doesn't save the stupid humans. We see most everything from its perspective. It has a rather funny running commentary, and we get parodies of space operas as the television shows it's become invested in.

(Murderbot reminds me uncomfortably of AI, to be honest. ( Read more... )

3. Andor S2 - I've seen one episode. It was good. Took a little while to get into, but well paced. It kind of throws you into the heart of the action without much lead in. And much like the previous season, there is a lot of hoping about between story threads and characters. Took me a little while to figure out where the characters were and what was going on.

It's a series about the beginning of the Rebellion against the evil Corporate Empire, and I'm not certain it's the best series to watch now?
Hits a little close to home in spots. Such as the bad guys discussing how they need to get a mining planet that specializes in silk clothing, to provide them with it's rick minerals for energy and fusion. The trick is to get the people to rebel, and they can invade and take over. And I'm thinking, this reminds me a lot of what is currently happening in the US government at the moment. I think I would have enjoyed this episode more if Kamala Harris had won or Obama was still President, just saying. As it is, it was giving me the heebie jeebies.

I do like the series, however, so will continue with it.

***

Currently reading:

* Remarkably Bright Creatures by Shelby Van Pelt, which is about an old cleaning lady at an aquarium who befriends a giant Pacific Octopus. I was told this was a happy book, or comfortable and funny read by folks online. They asked to rec happy or funny or comfort reads, and a lot of folks rec'd this one.

( Read more... )

On the Kindle.

* The Fair Folk by Su Bristow

"It’s 1959. To eight-year-old Felicity—who lives on a dying farm in England—the fairies in the woods have much more to offer than the people in her everyday life. As she becomes more rooted in their world, she learns that their magic is far from safe. Their queen, Elfrida, offers Felicity a gift. But fairy bargains are never what they seem. As an adult, Felicity leaves for university. Unfortunately, books are not her only company at Elfrida and Hobb—the queen’s constant companions—wield the ability to appear at any time, causing havoc in her new friendships and love life. Desperate, Felicity finally begins to explore the true nature of the Fair Folk and their magic. Her ally, the folklorist Professor Edgerley, asks, “What do they want from you?” The answer lies in the distant past, and in the secrets of her own family. As the consequences of the “gift” play out, Felicity must draw on her courage to confront Elfrida, and make the right choice. Interwoven with traditional stories and striking characters, The Fair Folk poses questions about how we care for our children, our land, and our love-hate relationship with what we desire most."

Reading in large paperback. Well-written and deliciously creepy in places.

*. And almost done with the audio book version of Crooked Kingdom by Leigh Bardugo, the sequel to The Six of Crows.
( Read more... )

Heavily references Slavic and Eastern European Myths and Folklore, which I find nicely innovative, most things are Western European Folklore.

1. I finished Queen Charlotte - which I rather adored. I liked it better than the last two Bridgertons. In part, because, it focused so much on Queen Charlotte and Lady Danbury, who are wonderful characters. Both very strong in their own rights.
( spoiler )

2. It occurs to me that the difficulty of being around others, is ...I have to turn a part of myself off. I cannot be fully myself. I talked to mother about this - and she agreed, there's always compromises to be made, and landmines to be navigated.

Being alone is satisfying. I feel energized. There's none of the tension.
Or the worry. None of the need to be mindful of someone else's space or needs.

Mother wondered if by living alone for so long, it would be difficult for me to live with others. I don't believe so. I work in a cubicle five days a week, eight hours a day, surrounded by people. I take trains with them. I share sidewalks with them. Share a laundry room. Share elevators. Mail. Hallways. And live in an apartment building in which often I can hear them in the hallways, or outside or rummaging above me or next door with the low hum of the telly. (Telly sounds better in my head than television.)

So yes, I can live in close proximity with others - but I need my own space within that. Where I can be alone, and separate from them. Where I can be if only for a few hours - or a day, or two, fully and completely myself.

3. I do not know if this true? But according to my brother, American English is actually British English from over two or three centuries ago. The British changed their language to differentiate themselves from Americans. So Americans are speaking old English?

Is this true? It's coming from my Brother, and I've learned over the years to take a lot of what he states with a hefty grain of salt. But I do trust my international and well versed correspondence list on the matter.

I found a review that I sort of agree with? (One never quite agrees completely with others reviews, because we see things so differently, at different times, locals, and often venues.)

Here's the NY Times "professional" critic's review on the final episode and takeaways from the series as a whole - it's spoilery, so don't read if you are "avoiding" spoilers. [Also it may or may not be behind a pay-wall.]

I did not read any reviews prior to seeing the series - outside of the blurbs I saw here and there on my DW correspondence list. Also, I watched the series - completely unspoiled, outside of what I had seen in the Jackson films, and my memories of the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings - which I've not re-read in any form since the 1980s.

So a few caveats:

1.) I am by no means a purist. I've never read nor have any intention of reading any works by Tolkien outside of the ones that I already have, which are : The Hobbit, Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and Return of the King. I find Tolkien kind of grueling after a bit, and I grew tired of the meticulous attention to detail he applied. I did not bother with the appendices, I'm not even sure they were included in the editions that I read or that I was aware of them when I read them.

2.) While I loved The Hobbit, enjoyed the Lord of the Rings, and visited an impressive and extensive exhibition of Tolkien's art, correspondence, journals, work, and scholarship - I am by no means a fan. This means, I have no clue who half of these characters are, and was oblivious to any major changes or alterations from the books. I only know that there were alterations because I found them online after the fact.

I think as is true with most adaptations, if you memories of the source material are rather vague, you'll enjoy them more. Or if you don't care and see it as adaptation - you'll enjoy it more. It is after all called an adaptation for a reason.

**

Review

It is among the better fantasy series that I've seen to date. The characters are compelling, and it answers various lingering questions that I had after seeing the films. It stays, for the most part, true to Jackson's film verse. I don't know how to true it is to the book verse - it didn't jar me any, I didn't notice anything off about the story, but keep in mind the above caveats. I'm casual fan of Tolkien, I'm by no means an obsessive one.

Also, it didn't have some of the problems that I had with Jackson's The Hobbit. This is either because I was more familiar with The Hobbit, or Jackson was more into long-unending battles.

Rings of Power meanders a bit, and takes a while to get to the point. Some might say, too long to get to the point. There is fun to be had along the way, however. There are also more diverse characters in this fantasy series than most. The lead is female, here, and she's a warrior. Adept at battle, and rather powerful. Her weakness is that she's a bit myopic, and too focused on her mission - to the point that she often fails to see what is right in front of her. Galadriel arc is by far the best arc in the series. She is the titular lead in this series - and her arc kind of sits at its center.( Read more... )

1. Still making my way through She-Rah and the Princesses of Power - I'm on S3 at the moment. It is getting better as it goes, but I wish the animation was better. Ugh.

2. I finally got around to watching Disclosure on Netflix, which I highly recommend. It's not perfect, but it does provide some insight into the transgender community, through their perspective. It's a documentary that focuses on the transgender entertainment community - ie. the actors and actresses within the community, along with the entertainers, and their struggle.
( long spoilery review )

1. I just finished watching Marvel's The Inhumans, which is not nearly as bad as the reviewers and the media seem to think it is. From a quality perspective? It's about equal to or on par with Marvel: Agents of Shield.

Is the acting bad? No not really. I actually found the bewildered and somewhat gruff performance of Anson Mount who portrays Black Bolt, oddly amusing and compelling. I can't decide if he's mentally challenged or just confused?

The plot? I don't know if it helps to be somewhat familiar with the characters from the comics? At any rate, the story is about a uprising among the Inhumans. Black Bolt and Medusa are currently leading the Inhumans, who are based on the moon. They are a society of hybrid human/aliens. If you've watched any of Marvel Agents of Shield, you may an inkling as to what the Inhumans are. At any rate, the comic books focused specifically on the Royal Family of Inhumans, Black Bolt, Medusa, Maximus, Crystal, etc. Each with different powers, except for Maximus who appears to be genetically human.

Here's the comic book history of The Inhumans:
( Read more... )
The series like the books focuses on the Royal Family. ( spoilers )

If you requires quality in your television dramas and are very selective (aka a television critic) this is not your show. It's campy and a bit cheesy, with loads of melodrama and cheap special effects (think Agents of Shield, Wynona Earp or Supergirl not Heroes or Westworld). So if you like Supergirl, the Flash, and Agents of Shield? Give it a whirl, you might like it. Although it is more melodramatic and not quite as relateable.

First hour? D- (I was bored and my attention kept wandering. Maximus talks too much. Someone needs to smack him. He just drones on and on, or rather whines.) Second Hour? C+ (more active and compelling, also funny in places. Less Maximus whinging.)
Overall rating? C-


2. I really wish Disney would get its act together and stop threatening to remove content that I'm enjoying. Also stop charging more money for access. (Disney? If you have "commercials" you do not get to charge more. If you don't have commercials, you do. There are rules regarding these things, or there used to be.) Disney and Altice the owner of Optimum Cable are fighting over rates, and Disney is threatening to pull content if Altice doesn't pay Disney the rates it wants for ESPN, ABC, The Disney Channel, Freeform. The big fight is actually over ESPN, which I don't watch and could care less about.

Sigh. Anyone else miss the days in which Cable was basically just HBO and Showtime?

They've been posting their threat at the bottom of all of their television shows, stating the channel may go dark on October 1. So I sent angry emails to both services in protest.

Although...frustrating as it is? I will survive without General Hospital (which I can actually watch online), Grey's Anatomy, Once Upon a Time, and...I'm not sure there's that much else. Maybe the Inhumans, although admittedly on the fence about it. The first hour of the Inhumans was boring. The second hour was interesting.

So you know, not that great a loss. It's not like there's not a million other television shows cluttering up my to-watch queue.

Saw the play The Pavilion last night at the South Carolina Repertory Theater. It's by Craig Wright - who according to the playbill - also wrote for Six Feet Under, Lost, Brothers & Sisters, Dirty Sexy Money and The United States of Tara. The Pavilion was nominated for a Pulitzer and the American Theater Critics Association Best New Play Award.

Popster liked it, Momster thought it was a bit on the preachy side (heavy and long existentialist monologues). Odd play. But demonstrative of how plot can often be the least interesting aspect of a story. The plot is rather simple. A 37 year old man goes to his 20 year high school reunion at the Pavilion, which is about to be demolished to make way for a parking lot. His goal is to reunite with his high-school sweetheart, whom he dumped twenty-years ago when she got pregnant with his kid. He wants to make things right with her, to start again.
The theme is that you can't really do that, all you can do is let go of the past and go forward.
You can revisit the past, even reminisce, and possibly forgive, but you can't change it or pretend it never happened.

It's a three person play, with a scant set. The narrator - a guy - plays all the former classmates, the ominiscent narrator or stage manager, and sets the overall tone, setting, and
stage. It's in this respect at least, similar to Thornton Wilder's Our Town, except Wilder's play is a bit more ambitious than Wright's and broader in scope. Here, we have what amounts to a moment in time - how each person is affected by others, how none are necessarily "happy" or
necessarily "secure" in their lives, so much as making the best of things. Peter - the protagonist wants to fix his life. He's a psychologist, living out in LA with a 23 year old girl-friend who paints still lifes. And he feels as if he's on the wrong path, the wrong train, that somewhere along the way - he took the wrong route. 17 minutes threw him off. If he can just reunite with Kari, his high school sweet heart, marry her, live with her, all will be well.
He decides leaving her set his course off. He would have been happier if he'd stayed. Kari for her part, disagrees - she's married to Hans. A golf pro. Who saved her from ill-repute. She'd had an abortion after Peter dumped her. And married Hans. And got a job in a bank, as the safety deposit clerk. Like Peter, she too hears everyone else's problems...digests them, yet never voices her own. And she harbors resentment towards Peter for the choices he made, as well as her own.

While Peter and Kari attempt to connect, they are interupted and often enter into discussions with other classmates, listening to snippets of each classmates' life. The narrator, one man, plays each of these classmates. And to give him credit he does a good job, with no costume changes, merely wearing white scrubs, and barefoot, he morphs into each character through vocal mannerisms and body language never quite falling into farce or caricature. This technique not only makes the play cheaper to produce, but it also acts as a metaphor for the self-asorption of the characters. As Kari points out to Peter - all Peter sees is himself, his needs. As does Kari. As, says the narrator, everyone. We all see ourselves as the lead character, everyone else blurs together. While they listen to their classmates, they never quite see or connect or hear them. They've blurred into one person. And if you listen to the other classmate's issues, Kari and Peter's doomed romance and current issues, are relatively minor, but not to them.

We're told the play is about time. At each interval, we're told by the narrator what time it is.
And how time can't be changed or altered. Not for one person. Not for two. Not for many. It heads in one direction only. But the play is also a psychological one on perception.

It's by no means perfect, flawed in a few places. The monologues drug it a bit, and the plot felt a bit cliche as did the humor. But it was performed. And there are bits in it that resonate long afterwards - due to how it is presented. Or the angle the playwright chose to present it. The idea of having one person play all the former classmates, male and female, and the scant staging, the Our Town feel to the proceedings...demonstrating once again that it is how we tell our stories that often makes the most difference and has the greatest impact.