a-keener-glance

[a-keener-glance]

On comediennes in early television

Women in comedy dominated from the beginning and didn’t slow down when they made the move to television. Their unique styles of comedy, precision in business, and dedication to the art form of comedy and the medium of television made them iconic, household names, fires that wouldn’t die out by the likes of challenges or challengers.

Lucille Ball ran her own television production company with her husband, Desi Arnaz. She produced three successful television shows, nearly simultaneously, one of which included I Love Lucy. The show was inevitably an excuse to spend more time with her husband, as he was a band leader and traveled away from home often. Lucille Ball was a master physical comedian, and although goofy, witty, and outright hilarious, she never followed the rule of having to look unattractive in order to make people laugh.

Lucille Ball as Lucy Ricardo and Vivian Vance as Ethel Mertz in the iconic candy factory scene from I Love Lucy.

Betty White practically lived her entire career out on television; every time she seemed to be fading into the background, she made her way back to the foreground starring in a new television show by the decade, Life with Elizabeth, Golden Girls, and Saturday Night Live to name a few. She was a cast member in sitcoms, variety shows, game shows, and even hosted talk shows, maintaining that same charm and good humor for the silver screen. Betty White’s never had a dull moment; her longevity seems to be never-ending, her hard work and determination paying off in every second of screen time.

Betty White was one of the first women to produce her own national television show.

Mary Tyler Moore, originally a dancer, was decisively casted for the Dick Van Dyke Show and caught on to the comedy game fairly quickly. She was dedicated and sharp, and had a persona that made America fall in love with her, and thus, they wanted nothing but for her to succeed. Mary Tyler Moore did just that, and with her unique All-American charm, she was able to run her sitcom, The Mary Tyler Moore Show on the air for almost a decade, all while sticking to her core values in the process. Mary Tyler Moore reinvented what it was to be woman in television, inspiring many American women off-screen in the process.

Mary Tyler Moore moved audiences and revolutionized the industry in subtle ways, with The Mary Tyler Moore Show for example, changing the lives of women across the country and encouraging them to work.

Joan Rivers knew as soon as she could string together thoughts that she was supposed to be famous. The bold, saying-what-everyone’s-thinking style of comedy that she discovered doing stand-up broke barriers for what women could do and say in stand-up comedy. She was the guest on The Ed Sullivan Show and The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, even getting the coveted permanent guest host spot on the Tonight Show. Her focus was on the audience and trying to make them laugh, and they did indeed laugh. Her sense of humor was clearly validated when CBS offered her her own talk show, affirming her success as a comedienne in television.

Joan Rivers was never afraid to pull any punches, and she didn’t have to, considering that she could always get an audience to laugh.

Carol Burnett, very much a queen of television comedy, struck gold when she sang the song “I Made a Fool of Myself Over John Foster Dulles,” becoming an instant household name. Originally wanting to sing on broadway, she found her niche in comedy instead, becoming a regular on the Garry Moore Show with a comedic style embodied by sass, goofiness, and boldness, accentuated by her full, contralto voice. Her variety show, The Carol Burnett Show, had her surrounded by an inventive and diverse set of comedians, all of which were able to encourage each other and whatever ideas they had to offer. This winning formula was able to keep the show running for 11 years.

Carol Burnett used her very real life experiences to fuel her comedy, along with a fearlessness and a fierceness that propelled her television career for decades, variety shows making her feel the most at home.

Marla Gibbs, a black comedienne and television producer and actress, made it clear that classic female television stereotypes would neither shield her from nor confine her in television. She modeled the importance of delivery, her role on The Jeffersons upgrading from one line in a single episode to being a regular on the series. Marla Gibbs’ dry, sassy humor and witty sarcasm carried throughout her career, proving that you could still be funny while getting a point across, and her resolute decision-making earned her a five year run for her television show 227, which is impressive considering she was the first black woman to have creative control over her own show.

Marla Gibbs extended her one-episode appearance on The Jeffersons to a regular appearance on the show for 10 years.

These women and others, like Phyllis Diller, Cloris Leachman, Pat Caroll, and Jackie Mabley, one of the highest-paid stand-up comedians from the 1930s through the 50s (and a black woman), created a unique landscape of opportunities for television and women’s role in television. The work that they put in and the unapologetic personalities that they maintained fortified their success and provided both inspiration and hope to those aspiring to follow in their footsteps.

[a-keener-glance]

On the importance of leitmotifs in storylines

A leitmotif is a piece of music dedicated to a specific moment or character in a story. It’s basically theme music, but if you want to get technical, it’s a bit more nuanced than that. 

Leitmotifs aren’t necessarily essential to a creative work, but the primary advantage to using them is that they better link the viewer to the content. Star Wars is a perfect example. John Williams established Darth Vader’s eminence and power with ‘The Imperial March’. And even if you don’t know that that piece of music was called ‘The Imperial March,’ you know exactly what music I’m talking about if you know Star Wars.  

Darth Vader’s leitmotif communicates how intimidating and lethal he is quite well.

A leitmotif can connect audiences to specific, recurring moments within a work. If a specific piece of music is played whenever a couple is together in a television series or a movie, then your audience will be reminded of that couple whenever they hear that music. Leitmotifs can also be tied to certain places, like ‘The Riders of Rohan’ piece from The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Characterization can also be emphasized or fortified with leitmotifs. In addition to the Darth Vader example, Fire Nation Princess Azula’s leitmotif in Avatar: The Last Airbender gives you a feeling of eeriness or uneasiness; it’s playful yet sinister at the same time. This translates very well within her character, and thus her leitmotif is able to reinforce her characterization.

Uncle Iroh on Azula. This quote communicates her personality almost as well as her leitmotif.

However, in order for such leitmotifs to work, they must stay consistent. The music has to convey a consistent meaning with which it can be associated by; it’s almost like classical conditioning in a sense. If the leitmotif is not maintained for that specific character or that specific moment it was originally used for, it can confuse your audience.

Hans Zimmer has been able to get away with something very cool, and that’s changing the leitmotifs of pre-established characters. Batman and Superman have been in and out of the entertainment industry over a period of decades, and their original theme music is often the only thought-out enough theme music to stick with audiences. But even in the Dark Knight series before the DC Universe revived Batman and Superman to segue into the Justice League, Hans Zimmer created a couple of noteworthy leitmotifs that were able to stick within the context of that trilogy.

Even so, no one had really touched Superman’s theme until Zimmer did in Man of Steel with ‘Look to the Stars’. And personally, it stuck with me. I knew it worked when the same music was used in Batman v Superman and I immediately associated it with Superman. What makes it even more impressive is that that piece of music sounds like Superman music. It’s able to convey a similar meaning that the original Superman theme had, but it’s almost more tailored to the type of character Superman is in the context of this movie universe, which isn’t the Superman we’ve always known.

New side of Superman, new leitmotif, same vibes, different nuances. The genius of Hans Zimmer, with the help of others of course. 

Leitmotifs are like spices; they just make the dish better. They add subtleties and depth to a film and its characters, and, to me, it’s one of the definitive differences between an ordinary concept and one that is well thought out and personally developed by its creators.

[a-keener-glance]

Geek Moment #2: Katara, ‘Avatar: The Last Airbender’

“No! I will never, ever turn my back on people who need me!”

Katara’s grandmother, Kanna, left her fiancé and her home the Northern Water Tribe for the Southern Water Tribe because she would no longer tolerate of the North’s misogynistic traditions.

Katara’s mother, Kya, sacrificed herself to save Katara from being killed by the Fire Nation in their hunt for the last waterbender in the Southern Water Tribe.

Katara, the last waterbender of the southern tribe, had it in her blood all along to inspire change wherever she went.

Although it was Aang’s destiny to restore balance to the world, the people that surrounded him were indispensable in getting him to that point. Katara was one of Aang’s strongest motivators in the sense that she would never let him be discouraged for too long. Even though Katara was, a little obnoxiously, the poster child for hope, without her, Aang probably wouldn’t have recovered as well as he had from the discovery of his people being wiped out by the Fire Nation. 

“Monk Gyatso and the other airbenders may be gone, but you still have a family. Sokka and I, were you’re family now.”

Katara wasn’t just a big picture thinker. Yes, defeating the Fire Nation and ending the 100-year war was the end goal, but she always thought of people like Haru and Jet, sympathizing with their individual causes and wanting to help anyway that she could. The personal effects of the war that she felt and her connecting with waterbending allowed her to touch people: in spite of growing up within the confines of the South Pole, she was able to find people she could relate to and make them feel like they weren’t alone, Aang included.

Katara had such a strong sense of responsibility and was quite motherly, even being dubbed the “sugar queen” by Toph, but it was almost like she did nothing but take risks. She decided to follow Aang around the world with her brother, Sokka. She went to the Northern Water Tribe to learn waterbending although it was forbidden for girls to learn. She helped an Earth Kingdom village regain its power from the Fire Nation. She helped a Fire Nation fishing village get back by impersonating a spirit, destroying a factory, and running some oppressive factory owners out of the village. She even faced Azula head-on in battle when Azula was in full on crazy mode, something only the truly brave can do.

Katara’s face-off with Fire Nation Princess Azula during Sozin’s Comet. Cutting it close, but Katara’s genius definitely pays off.

Speaking of facing Azula, Katara was also a incredibly amazing waterbender. She devoted so much time to honing her own craft, as well as teaching Aang. She learned the most impressive of waterbending techniques, bested all of the male students when Master Pakku taught her in the Northern Water Tribe (not to mention she challenged him, too, and almost won), and even learned and mastered subforms of waterbending, like healing and bloodbending.

Not yet a master waterbender, Katara fights in a match against one to dispose of the Northern Water Tribe’s custom to not teach girls waterbending. 

Katara most importantly was willing to understand others and bring about change within herself. Little by little, she was able to chip away her hatred for the scapegoats she had representing the Fire Nation, like Prince Zuko. She made peace with the people in her life that she felt let her down, she was able to sort out any conflicts that would come up between her and that Gaang, and she was able to sort out her inner conflicts and bring herself peace as well.

Katara is a very important female character to exist within the entertainment sphere because she is a perfect example of substantive, well-rounded, growing female character. The type of person Katara is, who she grows into, and how she grows are all well-established throughout the series. Even if some growth is implicit, it never seems out of character or all of a sudden. She’s still Katara, from beginning to end, and it shows any girl who’s watched the series that you don’t need some drastic transformation or royal blood flowing through your veins to be amazing. That’s a pleasant enough takeaway message for me.

And as always, water tribe.

[a-keener-glance]

My Netflix Queue: ‘Young Justice’ is not just another show about superheroes

I personally like the idea of fandoms, being a part of several, so when stuff like this comes along, I appreciate it a lot. Just like Deadpool was propelled by its fans, Young Justice was propelled by its fans in the same way.

Young Justice was a television show on Cartoon Network based around the DC Comics Universe. Rather than focusing on the Justice League, the story was centered around the sidekicks: Robin instead of Batman, Kid Flash instead of the Flash, Aqualad instead of Aquaman, and others continued to fall in as the show progressed. 

As a fan of the DC Comics Universe, it wasn’t the old Justice League shows that I grew up with, but I enjoyed watching it. They developed the plot well, the characters were well drawn, voiced, and structured, and it was a nice surprise since Cartoon Network was kind of in a dry spell in terms of consistent quality content. It was a different end of the DC Universe that explored storylines and characters not often, if at all, focused on when it came to the comic’s entertainment universe.

And then Warner Brothers cancelled it. After two seasons, the show just ended. It didn’t make a lot of sense to the fans, considering most of the people who watched Young Justice loved the show; it wasn’t like anyone lost interest as the show continued, even if ratings were saying otherwise. Regardless, it was off the air and on to the web on Netflix.

It turns out Netflix was an opportunity. Early last year, there was hope that if viewership numbers were high enough, the show could be revived. The hashtag #watchyoungjustice started circulating, and the creators were encouraging fans that if they kept watching, Season 3 of Young Justice could very well come to fruition.

The fans’ response? Well, Season 3 is in active production this year. Voice recording is even officially under way.

I love when stuff like this happens because, even though it’s small scale, it shows how art can act as a centripetal force, bringing people together to reach a common goal. Not only that, but it also shows that when people care a lot about something and are given the opportunity to care for it, they can incite unexpected change. And more than anything, that’s inspirational, especially in a time like this.

[a-keener-glance]

On James Wan and horror

I’ve never finished watching a horror movie and not felt like I could have lived without seeing it, but I’ve probably watched enough horror movies for someone to think that I was a fan. I wouldn’t say that I am.

Be that as it may, I know a decent amount about the horror genre, enough to know about James Wan, at least. If you were wondering where Saw, Dead Silence, the Insidious series, The Conjuring series, Lights Out, Annabelle, and soon, The Nun, came from, you have James Wan to thank.

Horror has oscillated between slasher movies and creature features for a while now, but there has been a recent shift to the paranormal, or the supernatural. This was likely facilitated by movies like Poltergeist (1982) and The Blair Witch Project, not to mention running out of Friday the 13th and Halloween sequels. And James Wan took the supernatural baton, sprinted with it, and kept running past the finish line.

When it comes to the supernatural horror films, James Wan dominates. There haven’t really been many of those types of movies to consistently compete with his work. That’s because a lot of horror films are low-budget independents, a overwhelming amount of which use first-person camera in Blair Witch fashion to probably avoid the cost of using a real camera. These types of movies are short-lived, and by the time at least two noteworthy films fitting that bill are released, James Wan has three more Insidious films out.

Wan is also efficient, almost too efficient for my taste. It’s true that some of his films are inspired, like Lights Out or The Conjuring, so the material may be easier to produce in those cases. However, these movies still have sequels and/or spinoffs that are getting produced no more than three or four years apart from one another on a consistent basis. With the production quality of the films he’s making, that’s pretty impressive.

That’s not even his only focus, either. James Wan is currently the executive producer of the recent remake of the MacGyver television series, and he’s been announced to produce the upcoming Mortal Kombat movie, and he’s directing the new Aquaman movie that’s coming out in 2018. This is in addition to an Insidious sequel, an unnecessary spinoff for the nun from The Conjuring 2, an unnecessary Annabelle sequel, among other things.

In a sense, James Wan has become the gold standard for horror, and he could very well continue to set the tone for the types of horror films that get released within the next decade. The question is, will anyone else be able to step up and freshen the horror movie perspective? Or does the genre risk running out of ideas?

[a-keener-glance]

Totally Deep Discussions: On violence in entertainment media, Part IV: Consequences

The consequences of being exposed to violence in entertainment media, and honestly news media as well, on a large scale are hard to pinpoint; it’s also very tricky because this affects people, and no two people are 100 percent alike.

What I will say, though, is that I don’t think entertainment violence is either a direct or a sole cause of violent behavior. Again, the violent acts covered on the news and the way that the news covers them can also contribute to violent behavior. Rather, I think entertainment violence is part of a synergy including psychological, sociocultural, environmental, and philosophical factors that push people to do violent things. 

Additionally, I think that there is more likely to be some kind of inherent or suppressed aggression in a person that bubbles to the surface as a result of watching or playing something violent that would cause them to be violent. Things like violence never come out of nowhere, nor are they the result of a singular stimulus, although it can start from a stimulus. What I think would be more likely is a chain reaction, a cumulative and comprehensive process in which entertainment violence is included that leads people to commit violent actions.

Now, I have a hard time believing that violence in entertainment media desensitizes its viewing population to real-life violence. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I just don’t think that is what’s happening. If anything, what entertainment violence is doing is warping the reality of violent situations. 

In several cases for various reasons, fictional entertainment media will sacrifice realism to tailor whatever scenario they’ve planned to use to the context of the plot that has been written. For example, a handgun likely to have no more than 6-10 bullets in a cartridge is used by a police officer in a tv show who is firing off over 30 shots without changing the cartridge a single time.

Also, in general, the information regarding various forms of violence, the things that pertain to it, and its effects are only found in discreet places; you’d have to be interested enough to look if you wanted to know about those things. For example, I would probably have to find a blog, find experts, and read books about the impact of football on its players, about the engineering and physics that goes into guns, and the like. 

What makes the reality warping of entertainment violence effective is that there are plenty of people in the world who have no accurate frame of reference when it comes to violence because they have little to no in-person experience. For example, I have no idea what it’s like to be punched in the face nor do I have any idea what it’s like to punch someone in the face. So, I might have no idea what the bruising coloration would look like or how long it would take for that coloration to subside. Although I think that would depend on the amount of force used in the punch and the duration for which someone sustained the damage, I might not have a frame of reference except for what I’ve seen in the movies or on television. However, I watch enough mixed-martial arts and boxing that I do have a good enough idea, but you get the point.

You can always make a choice, but you can’t choose the consequences. But those consequences are not always so cut and dry. There’s a lot more that goes into entertainment violence than just saying that it’s simply violent. I hope I’ve been able to get that across in some shape or form during this discussion as it comes to a close.

[a-keener-glance]

Totally Deep Discussions: On violence in entertainment media, Part III: Reasons

Probably the most prominent underlying reason for violence in entertainment media stems from the reason that violent forms exist in present day period, that of which is a psychological reason. So, let’s take a break from the film discussion and talk a little science.

The peripheral nervous system, or PNS consists of all of the nerves that connect to your brain and spinal cord (the central nervous system, or CNS). Within the PNS is your autonomic nervous system, which divides into the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. The sympathetic nervous system deals with all of your fight-or-flight responses, those instinctive survival responses. 

Within your CNS is your brain. Within the brain lies all of your emotions, centered in a structure in the limbic system called the amygdala. The amygdala is associated most with fear, anger, and sexual emotions.

That tiny little red dot is an amygdala. Such responsibility for something so small.

That being said, one of the most basic emotions key to survival is aggression. In the past, when life expectancy was low and anything could happen, there was always the possibility that you had to be violent if you wanted to live. Although this issue isn’t as relevant on a massive scale in more developed societies today, the need for some expression of violence remains inherent. Violence is rooted well enough in our genetics that if they aren’t released at least by artistic means, or by means of entertainment, they risk being manifested in real life situations.

Now that the psychological basis for why violence exists in entertainment media has been established, we can discuss the other reasons. Like works of literature, you won’t really know the surface reason for why violence is in an artistic medium without directly talking to the person who is perpetuating the violence, but I’ve made a few generalizations based on observation.

The most obvious reason for violence in entertainment media is catharsis. For people who participate in contact sports, or even people who play violent video games, their reason for participating in the violent acts that come with the medium that serves for entertainment purposes is to get their violence out through means of mastering physical technique and various styles of those techniques.

The intent for martial arts, like judo, is not to be violent, but to get out aggression while also mastering a specific style of combat. Martial artists consider those styles of combat art, rather than violence.

Two more reasons that violence would be used in entertainment media would be for accuracy and to raise awareness. In a sense, these can go hand-in-hand. The goal when trying to be accurate in entertainment is to provide an immersive environment for the audience. For example, Forrest Gump depicted scenes of the Vietnam War while Forrest Gump served. The point was to get the audience to understand how brutal the war was, so it wouldn’t make sense to sugar-coat or gloss over the violence. 

Forrest Gump, just an amazing movie, gave a first-hand perspective of the Vietnam War’s intensity.

Another reason for using violence is simply for aesthetics. Whether it’s a video game like Mortal Kombat, a director like Quentin Tarantino, or a genre like slasher films, the creators behind the entertainment medium make violence and the type of violence that they use a distinct characteristic of their material. Their material is not simply a platform for explicit violence, however. The violence itself is an embellishment to the material, and it also happens to be ornate enough, more often than not, to grab the attention of those who have the necessary curiosity.

Mortal Kombat, famous for its “fatalities,” or quite gory ways of demolishing your opponents.

The reasons for violence in entertainment media are not purposely dubious; in fact, the reasons are primarily subjective or personal rather than objective. Regardless, the consequences of the exposure to violence in entertainment media cannot be chosen. Next, I’ll outline those consequences. Stay tuned.

[a-keener-glance]

Totally Deep Discussions: On violence in entertainment media, Part II: Types

Generally, violence in entertainment media falls into two categories: implicit violence and explicit violence.

Implicit violence happens in various ways, but the idea is that the violence is happening off-camera. You see a dead body with a gunshot wound or evidence of blunt-force trauma. You see bruises on someone, but not how they got there. Someone grabs a knife or cranks a chainsaw and the person they’re about to use it on starts freaking out, then you either just see the blood spatter or there’s some kind of transition into the next scene, like a cut to black. 

Obviously dead, obviously stabbed, but all you see is the body.

Explicit violence is the violence you see. You see someone get kneed in the face; you see someone getting shot in the head; you see someone’s arm getting cut off.

However, these are not types of violence, but merely the ways in which violence is portrayed in media. I don’t know if I can necessarily categorize measures of violence into types, but I’ll try my best.

One type of violence is combat violence. This can include gang violence, war violence, contact sports, fight scenes, and the like. The primary characteristic is that the violence is indicative of a sort of mutual struggle going on between two or more parties.

Clearly a knee to the face. Mixed martial arts, or MMA, a contact sport.  

Another type of violence, which can overlap with combat violence in a sense, is homicidal violence. It can overlap with combat violence because in some cases, like war violence, someone gets killed, but the main point of homicidal violence is that the violence is one-sided or is just being exacted with an overwhelming force from one party rather than the other. Homicidal violence is going to include murders, torture and execution scenes, things of that nature. 

There are two other types of violence that I’m thinking of that I would consider special cases: sexual violence and gore. Personally, I’m categorizing sexual violence separately because the nature of sexual violence has a different tone than non-sexual types of violence. Gore, characteristically bloody violence, would fit best between the homicidal and combat violence categories, not necessarily in its own category, neither would it fit in one or the other completely.

These are fairly broad categories for violence, but I didn’t want to get too specific either. Later, we’ll get into the levels of intensity of violence when I discuss reasons why violence might exist in entertainment media in the first place. Stay tuned.

[a-keener-glance]

Totally Deep Discussions: On violence in entertainment media, Part I: Perceptions

Violence is primarily defined as “behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.” Throughout the time that entertainment media has existed, violence has been a subject of controversy in some form or another. From contact sports to video games to movies, television, and even books, violent content is up for debate.

Not everyone sees this violence the same, however. Some people are huge football fans, but if you take into consideration that the collision force between two players is comparable to a car crash, it’s understandable how people might find it a bit brutish. Some people find video games like Call of Duty to be cathartic, while others think it can give a psychological predisposition to become more violent in the future. Seeing violence in television in movies is arguably completely different from experiencing it in real life, but others would disagree, saying that with an increase in displays of violence within those media comes an increase in audiences’ desensitization to violence.

Hopefully most people can agree murder and other forms of violence are unacceptable in real life cases. What is interesting, though, is when violence gets translated into the entertainment realm. There isn’t as uniform of an answer. Why might that be? Well, it probably has to do with the subjectivity of the reasoning behind why violence exists in certain media. That answer also varies depending on the type of violence and when such exposure of violence occurs. For example, some people will think that a television episode containing a bombing might not be best for broadcasting around the same time a bombing has actually occurred in real life. Additionally, some people will think gang violence, like a drive-by, is easier to watch on-screen as opposed to sexual violence, like a rape.

I don’t really know if I have a goal for this totally deep discussion, but I at least want to express what thoughts that I had about types of violence in entertainment media and why they’re there. I can’t cover everything, but I will steer the discussion in the direction of the things that I hear and see more often in regards to violence in entertainment media. Stay tuned.

[a-keener-glance]

On trends in science fiction

Science fiction is arguably one of the most impactful genres in society, mostly in its ability to get its audiences to question the world around them, to provide sociopolitical commentary on current issues in our society, and to guide how our technology advances, whether it’s unconscious or not. 

The sociopolitical happenings of the world almost always inspire science fiction works in some form or another. When The War of the Worlds was originally published as a book in 1898, it was, in part, a commentary on British imperialism. The film adaptation that came out in 1953, however, spoke to the swirling fears of communism in the aftermath of the Korean War.

War of the Worlds, the 2005 adaptation. A story that remains influential throughout time. 

Within the past few years or so, space movies made a comeback. However, they haven’t really been about invasions like they were in the Cold War era. Now, they’re about discovery, survival, ambiguous or potential extraterrestrial threats to humanity, things along those lines. 

Movies like Gravity, Interstellar, and The Martian deal with identity crisis, self-discovery, or introspection, more or less all through isolation and with some aspect of survival. With regards to the current society, whether it’s in music or social media, similar expressions of identity crises within the younger generation have been fairly prevalent, not to mention the wide variety of minority or stigmatized social groups encouraging self-acceptance and self-love in spite of personal obstacles and societal barriers.

The Martian (2015), about surviving a harsh and unfamiliar environment and learning about yourself in the process.

Movies like Prometheus and Alien: Covenant or Arrival deal with the conflict and consequences of trusting the unknown and surviving the fallout, if there is one. What are the risks that you run trusting and/or underestimating an entity you don’t understand? The sense of moral conflict and ambiguity with regards to interacting with alien entities is an offshoot of the growing disillusionment of the government and other authorities, starting around the time that Watergate happened, that sparked the artificial intelligence/science experiment featuring a deceptive and/or domineering entity sci-fi trend that’s been less prevalent over the past couple of years, only coming out in shows like Stranger Things. 

Prometheus (2012), about the consequences of underestimating and neglecting the things you don’t fully understand. 

Sci-fi trends are not only a commentary on the current sociopolitical shifts; they also exemplify how common sci-fi topics can be translated differently through different time periods. Space movies can reflect concerns with imperialism or reflect the conflict of deciding whether or not what you don’t know can actually harm you in the long run. Movies with regards to artificial intelligence or science experiments can either shed light on the consequences of playing god or on a society’s distrust of authority. 

The flexibility of these topics is what is going to keep the sci-fi genre fresh in terms of what an audience can get out of the content, and as long as sci-fi continues to speak uniquely to current issues, it will stay an important and impactful genre for storytelling media in the future.

[a-keener-glance]

On crime dramas in television

If I had to pick a genre in television that was the most successful, it would be crime drama. Crime drama is a bit of a vast genre in terms of what it can encompass, but it’s more specific than drama and most crime dramas have the same effect for television, or at least the effect that I want to convey.

Crime dramas with regards to television are shows that deal with crime, whether it dramatizes real-life events, is inspired by those events, or is just completely made up.

The advantage of crime drama is that it’s extremely versatile and very flexible, so all crime dramas don’t feel exactly the same, even the spinoffs: Law and Order is not the same as Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. It might have the same feel and aesthetics, but the characters and the plot are different enough for one to be different from another. 

With that, it’s probably easiest to do a spinoff for a crime drama, and it hasn’t completely proven unsuccessful thus far. If Law and Order, CSI, and NCIS can keep their spinoffs going, some of which can be more popular than the original show, it appears to be a pretty smart business move.

There’s such a wide variety of material to choose from when it comes to crime drama, which probably makes content creation easier on the writer. What’s the type of crime or types of crimes you want to hone in on? Do you want to focus on the law enforcement or the criminals? Do you want the primary location to be personal, like someone’s house, or impersonal, like a law enforcement agency or precinct, or do you want a combination of the two? What city do you want it to be in?

The choices you have are endless, and each one can make a whole new show. Take a show about cops for instance. A show about cops in Los Angeles will be completely different from cops in Dallas. There is a whole different perception of cops and types of crimes between those cities. Let’s take type of crime as another example. A show about serial killers, like Hannibal, is going to have a completely different vibe from a show about a drug lord or cartel, like Narcos. 

Pablo Escobar doesn’t worry me nearly as much as Hannibal Lecter.

Crime drama is also reliable. Reliable may seem like an interesting word to use, but if you have a show like Castle or Motive, where the atmosphere of the show makes audiences interested or excited to figure out whodunit and why as the main characters move from case to case, it draws people in. That mystery element make the show interactive; the audience is brought back into the equation in a way. 

Crime dramas are also reliable because, mainly in cases where episode plots are self-contained, you don’t have to watch every single episode in order to keep up with the plot. The main basis for sticking with a crime drama is then for the characters and the pace of the show from episode to episode, elements of which are easier to keep up with more so than a long, drawn out plot.

Probably most importantly, crime drama is something that television pulls off the best. Hardly any other medium makes good crime drama as consistently as television does, and I think that’s going to be important to the medium later on, if it isn’t already important to television now. I can’t fairly pinpoint a reason why crime drama is so good on television, but I definitely feel like television has made the genre its own, and maybe if television can tailor more genres and even just storytelling in general to make them as palatable to the medium as crime drama, that would make the game more interesting. 

I guess the important question now, is how.

[a-keener-glance]

On movie stars moving to television

I don’t watch television often, but when I do, I notice the change.

I hadn’t been watching television for the past few years unless I was binge-watching something like Orphan Black or Downton Abbey, but I slowly started to come back to television around last year, and I saw something interesting. And I’m starting to see it more often.

Movie stars are shifting to television. And I’m not talking about that one actor from a romantic comedy who’s going to be in a new, slightly obscure television show. I’m talking about actors and actresses who have hardly touched the silver screen in their entire careers, or I just never expected to go to or never saw on television ever. Anthony Hopkins, Diane Keaton, Jude Law, Reese Witherspoon, Tom Hardy, the list goes on. Most of those are just on premium channels like HBO or Starz though, who have more time to craft good, hearty television, and that’s what I tend to watch more often.

If you want to get me to watch most things, the magic words are “Jude Law.”

But it’s not just those networks. Damon Wayans is doing Lethal Weapon on Fox, Susan Sarandon is doing the premier season of Feud on FX as Bette Davis alongside Jessica Lange’s Joan Crawford, and Viola Davis is the star of Shonda Rhimes’s How to Get Away with Murder on ABC, to name a few.

I feel like this does something big for television by attracting fans of those well-known and/or prestigious actors and and attracting those curious about the quality of the shows that these actors have picked. Fans of Dwayne Johnson might check out Ballers even though he hasn’t done much television if any at all. Just as well, people who know Anthony Hopkins and how carefully he chooses his work are either going to assume that Westworld will be a good show if not a great one, or they are going to wonder what Westworld has to offer considering that Anthony Hopkins even agreed to do it.

Why are these actors making this shift? Well, probably because they can. Most of the actors shifting to television, like Susan Sarandon or Diane Keaton, have amazing careers and can completely afford to do whatever they want, television or movies. They probably have parts written with them in mind at this point in their careers. Tom Hardy has had enough success in the past 7 years to go ahead and partner up with the probably even more qualified Ridley Scott and do Taboo on FX. They might just want to spice up their careers and try something they haven’t really done before, which I totally support. 

I like this trend because it’s slowly reintroducing some quality and class back to television that I had been missing or might not have been old enough to watch. I think that slowly, very slowly, more people are trying to craft good television as opposed to just throwing wet pasta at the wall and seeing what sticks, which isn’t uncommon, believe me. 

This could also be an indicator of people who are able to come up with good ideas for television and even more importantly, having the budget and credentials to do so. I would love to see how far this can go. Maybe I’ll be more interested in television again; I don’t know.

[a-keener-glance]

On remakes and reboots and sequels (oh my!)

Before we can get into remakes, reboots, sequels, or what I think about any of these types of films, I want to define these terms so we won’t mix them up or think that they’re synonymous with one another.

A remake is like the new Magnificent Seven that came out that I like.

Justice has a number.

Remakes are an updated version of the original film, and they usually don’t come out right after the original film’s release. They essentially use the same plot, but may change some details about the film in terms of casting or setting and the like. For example, the Magnificent Seven is still about a woman who enlists seven gunfighters to save her village, but instead of the villagers being Mexican and the Seven being white, the diversity lies within the Seven, and the villagers are white.

A reboot is like the new Blade Runner movie scheduled to come out this that I’m kind of excited for.

Rick Deckard’s back.

Reboots are a continuation of the original film that come out a long period of time after the original film’s release. Usually, movies are called “reboots” when the original movie was thought to be close-ended, meaning no sequels were to come from it. The reboot itself is reviving the original movie’s plot.

Sequels are like the new Fast and Furious movie that’s coming out for no reason.

And another one.

Sequels are continuations of the original movie that come out fairly recently after the original’s movie release. The original movie is usually left open-ended intentionally for a sequel to be made.

The ideal effect for a remake is to make audiences feel nostalgic and/or provide a fresh perspective on the original film. Nostalgia is also a goal for reboots, but reboots, I would say, are more tailored to people who have seen the original film. Sequels want to extend the sentiments of the original film, to keep the party going if they see that the people wouldn’t mind having more. However, all three types of films, if done in excess or done poorly, can end up having one general sentiment.

Sometimes it’s best to let a good thing just be one good thing and not squeeze everything you can out of it until all you have left is crap. Sometimes, you have to let good things end and keep them immortalized in time to be remembered forever as a good thing. 

However, not unlike adaptations, reboots, remakes, and sequels can all be signals of a lack of original ideas flowing through the mainstream industry or a lack of people who don’t want to take risks with original ideas in the mainstream industry because of money. It’s not surprising, but it is annoying when I have to suppress parts of my memory so I won’t have to remember bad versions of my favorite movies. 

That doesn’t mean there aren’t good remakes, reboots, or sequels out there, although sequels are rarely ever better than the first film. Just saying. But there are good examples of these types of movies. My only wish is if the prevalence of these types of movies continues to grow, studios should take more care and have more wisdom with how they do these types of movies.

It’s also just good to chill out sometimes, you know? Nine Saw movies seems like a bit too much. And you don’t need to re-do every Disney classic I ever loved as a child. But whatever. Doesn’t hurt my feelings.

[a-keener-glance]

My Netflix Queue: ‘The Sisterhood of Night’ is not just an independent film about sketchy teenage girls

It’s not. I promise.

But let’s be honest: all teenagers are sketchy, in some way, shape, or form, myself included.

The Sisterhood of Night is, in a way, a modern-day “Salem Witch Trials.” Rumors spread, no one will dispute them, and chaos ensues with dire consequences.

The sisterhood starts out with Mary Warren, Catherine Huang, and Lavinia Hall. Mary acts as a leader of sorts, but it’s established pretty early that the sisterhood doesn’t have any intention of being hierarchical; it’s just perceived to be that way.

These original three carefully handpick girls to join the sisterhood. As they scout for new members, people take notice. Girls are hanging on edge, hoping that Mary finds them worthy of the sisterhood. Anonymity surrounds the sisterhood, an eclectic bunch of girls who gather in the night. No one knows what they do; they hardly know where they go. It’s understandable for that kind of shady behavior to give way to rumors.

Enter Emily Parris, a girl decisively rejected by Mary with no foreseeable way into the sisterhood. Emily has a blog with a stable following, and she prays to God every day to be popular. And what other way to skyrocket your popularity than to find dirt on those more popular than you.

Emily starts rumors about the sisterhood being a cult of witches who make sacrifices to the devil at their nightly gatherings. Living in a small town, these kinds of rumors aren’t shaken easily, especially when girls come forward to support such rumors, ushering in paranoia about the sisterhood. What worsens the situation is that the sisterhood doesn’t defend itself. The girls uphold their code of silence, even at the risk of their suspension and the sisterhood’s dissolution.

The pressure between the girls’ silence and the rest of the community’s desire for clear answers causes full-blown hysteria and unwarranted attack against the sisterhood, bringing the story to its disastrous climax.

It’s only after a painful loss that Emily Parris admits that the rumors she spread about the sisterhood were straight up lies. That’s when we learn that the sisterhood was made to be a safe haven, a place in which the girls could confide in one another knowing that their secrets and concerns would be kept safe within the group.

And that’s the key to this film. It’s not just about sketchy teenage girls--it’s about a desire to be heard and a desire to have privacy.

Today’s culture encourages the sharing of and access to all different types of information, personal or not. However, it often can often become a competition of who’s better or a shout into the void. No one gets properly heard or understood, and yet, we have to know everything about them in order to accept them. 

Yeah, sketchy behavior is sketchy. But is it too horrible to let people off the hook sometimes and try to be more understanding? Can we all agree that it’s uncomfortable to be observed only to be judged by others? Can’t we agree that it’s okay that some people want to keep things in confidence, that some chapters are best left unread, and that those unread chapters don’t define a person? A little faith and a little mercy can go a long way, even so far as to save a life.

So you have my vow of silence.

[a-keener-glance]

‘The Hunger Games’: A look into the adaptation trend, Part II

I’ve seen a lot of bad adaptations in my day. I’ve also seen several good ones. One of the most important things that make good film adaptations is their ability in being able to accurately translate the source material to the film medium. In other words, I should watch the movie and like the story without having to know and/or be a fan of the source material.

I read the Hunger Games books and watched the films in their entirety, and I’ll give the movies a solid B+, an 87, maximum. That could be harsh for some and too much for others, but I don’t really care because this is my blog and I’m going to have whatever opinions I feel like. 

Overall, the films did the basis of their job, which is translate the book into a movie without butchering it. Within the constraints of run time, what they were able to get across is commendable. 

The extra 13 to 15 points missing from that possible 100 is that the movies couldn’t fully capture certain elements of the story, subtleties that made the books really enjoyable--and I’m a huge fan of subtleties. The characterization wasn’t as thorough as it could have been, taking depth from characters that needed it to be better understood. Some characters were even left out in the movies, and although minor, those excluded characters gave the plot a more unique texture.

It’s not entirely fair to make critiques on the special effects and visual layout of the Panem’s scenery not being my cup of tea because budget and technology are much more limited than the vast expanses of my imagination. With that being said, I’ll just elaborate on characterization and plot.

1. Plot interpretation. 

A definitive moment.

The book is written in a first person point of view. We as readers experience Panem and all of its players through Katniss’s eyes. We inherit, in some ways, her bias, and we understand her motives. On the other hand, the movies are in third person point of view. You get to see other characters’ motives, such as that of President Snow, and you get to see how the games really work. This provides more insight and scope into Panem and Katniss’s place in it, along with the rest of the characters. 

Although it can take out some of the story’s original color, it rather replaces it than just removes it. An omniscient point of view in this context allows viewers to separate themselves from Panem to understand that what’s happening in this world is not normal, and it’s not supposed to be. This is an interesting perspective that we might not be able to grasp as quickly in the first person because to Katniss, for the majority of the story, her world is normal. It’s what she and everyone else in Panem have experienced their entire lives. However, since we lack that personal experience through the film, we are able to critique their society and way of life from a more objective point of view, shifting the discussion of the story into a new light.

2. Characterization.

The strength of a good story lies not only within the plot, but within its ability to construct and develop lovable and/or relatable characters. This holds especially with book characters because we can neither hear nor see them in a tangible sense. It’s all in our imagination, but again, the imagination is a very powerful adversary against our concrete reality. 

What I imagined most of the Hunger Games characters and their interactions to be like were not interpreted the same way on screen, so I was a bit disappointed with some of the characters who lacked the general subtleties, in addition to the subtleties in their individual depth and growth, that made me appreciate them in the books. For example, Peeta has a lot more wit and charm, shown in the books, among other strengths that make him quite valuable to Katniss and entities like the Rebellion or the Capital. However, Peeta, more often than not in the movies, comes off whiny and incapable rather than just not as good as people like Katniss and Gale, both of whom are significantly above average with regards to combat and survival capabilities. 

They’re just crazy good.

I was also disappointed when some minor characters from the books were entirely left out, like Madge Undersee. Madge was the daughter of District 12′s mayor from the first book, before the new mayor and peacekeepers were ushered in by Snow in Catching Fire. Madge was good friends with Katniss before Katniss volunteered for the Hunger Games, and the girl who actually gave Katniss the mockingjay pin instead of Greasy Sae, the old lady who ran the Hob. Madge was not the only character omitted from the films who contributed to some of the more subtle, more textured plot aspects.

You could attribute the lack of more thorough character development primarily to the limits on run time. Studios set run time for films based on various criteria, and after that time limit is given, there isn’t a lot of wiggle room once all of that film gets to the editing suite. As a result, sometimes things that are subtle or require more depth get sacrificed for a wider scope.

If anything, The Hunger Games is a good example of how adaptations can still be done well in spite of things getting lost in translation. Regardless, it’s a good, emotive story that’s obviously made changes to the entertainment industry in unforeseen ways. Like most people say, the books were better, but that doesn’t mean I won’t sit and watch the movies from time to time.

You have a tendency to get attached.

[a-keener-glance]

‘The Hunger Games’: A look into  the adaptation trend, Part I

The Hunger Games was a wildly successful book series that moved to the big screen in 2012. The equally successful film series grossed over $755 million in the box office, each of the movies ranking within the top 50 biggest opening weekends.

The Hunger Games, although not the first in the crazy adaptation trend, was one of the more noteworthy adaptations to be released after the not so noteworthy Twilight series and that terrible, awful Avatar: The Last Airbender adaptation. 

The Hunger Games was also one of the first of the big series to be adapted that had a sympathetic female protagonist at its center, Katniss Everdeen, a girl whose story we follow from beginning to end in her eyes.

Just to frame how influential Katniss was, the popularity of archery sharply increased after the 2012 release of The Hunger Games. 

It arguably even paved the way for more stories starring female protagonists to come to the forefront, such as the new Star Wars films.

The Hunger Games was the start of the dystopian trend as well. Movies like The Giver and the Divergent and Maze Runner series were released amid The Hunger Games series, taking advantage of dystopia’s popularity before the fad faded.

These movies catalyzed the adaptation trend, prompting release after release of film adaptations, primarily of books. The almost constant success of the synergistic release of books and movies has even prompted Hollywood agents to start working with book authors, solidifying potential deals in advance. Authors have begun tailoring their writing to make their work translate better on film. Adaptations could even be classified as their own genre because of the growing prevalence of these types of movies in the industry.

Although this adaptation trend challenges the creativity aspect of the film and even the novel medium, the desirability is understandable because it almost always guarantees profitability. 

The only caveat with such a trend is a filmmaker’s ability to translate the source material; frankly, it’s an extremely critical difference between a good adaptation and a bad one. The dumbest thing you can do as a filmmaker is piss off the fanbase of a beloved book or book series. Stay tuned for Part II when I examine how well The Hunger Games is able to overcome such a challenge.

[a-keener-glance]

On the trend of adaptations

You know it, and I know it, and if you don’t know it, then you haven’t been paying attention. 

Whether it’s a book, a television show, a video game, or a play, if it’s popular enough, there’s someone off in a corner at a film studio ready to make an adaptation.

I can definitely understand why the industry takes on adaptations. The general storyline, the framework for setting and characters, and the target audience already exist. You don’t have to sit around and think about good ideas that are popular enough to sell. You just read a cool book called Fight Club and rely on its fanbase, at minimum, for profit.

Not to say that there’s just no effort that needs to be put into adaptations, there is, but the load is definitely easier to bear.

This trend has become more intense though. I’ve probably seen more adaptations within the past few years than in any other time in my life, although my life hasn’t been that long. It’s less like a waiting corner and more like an anime corner.

I get it. Books like Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings blew up as movies, and you would either be stupid or think quite highly of yourself to not get on that trend. But as anything increases in volume, there is more of an opportunity to have bad versions of those things. 

What I’m saying is, I’ve seen too many bad adaptations to continue to support this trend with as much vigor as I might have when Return of the King won Best Picture at the Oscars.

Now, bad adaptations can be indicative of bad directors, or even some concepts that just can’t be translated well into the film medium. But the sheer increase in volume of adaptations being done, to me, points toward more grave challenges that film is facing.

Those challenges can consist of many things on a case-by-case basis, but I’ll mention two for now that are of my personal concern as an aspiring filmmaker. 

The first is the profitability of film. Adaptations, as mentioned earlier, have a more secure target audience: the people who know and/or are interested in the source material. This is guaranteed box office money at least, for those who are curious enough about it to see it in theaters. Movies are much easier to consume than entire book series and more accessible than plays, more often than not. But does this mean that money has won the struggle between it and creativity as the primary motive for producing content?

The second challenge is a dearth of creativity, or originality. Original content isn’t nonexistent, but it’s definitely not as popular as adaptations. Original films are most common among the independent film industry and thrive at places like Cannes or Sundance. And adaptations being more popular makes sense because human nature often means going with things that make you comfortable. Still, does our society value comfort and nostalgia and feeling good of creativity, challenge of thought, and different or new perspectives?

Or is it just the general desire to invest in something that has a lower risk of disappointment? As an audience member, it’s completely understandable to feel better spending your money on something you already know you’ll like versus something you could like that runs the risk of not being done well.. 

I think it would be romantic if society could value creativity over money in the realm of art, but that’s rarely ever the case in this economy. While that struggle rages on, I’ll be in my emo corner, figuring out how I can have one without sacrificing the other.

I wonder how many times I’ve said adaptation in this post.