The Mike-Kate Video Club has reviewed Nolan's Batman trilogy:
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight Rises
Also, kudos to Christian Bale for his handling of the Colorado shootings (and thanks to Mike for the link). He hit the right note. In general, I have been impressed by the attitude of fans, reviewers, and victims who have resisted making the tragedy about the movie. Bad guys don't always win.
Showing posts with label Video Club. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Video Club. Show all posts
Time Travel Returns
After a one week vacation, the Mike-Kate Video Club has returned to reviewing time travel movies and shows--this week, Back to the Future!
Next week--Stargate!!
Next week--Stargate!!
The "Endurance Plot"
This post originally started out as commentary on Friends. However, it has morphed into a critique of a certain type of literary plot.
As part of our sitcom list, Mike and I reviewed Friends. As a result of reviewing Friends, I ordered and watched several seasons.
Here's what I learned.
Friends is extremely well-written, not just per episode but per season. The writers pace the big events extremely well; they aren't as crowded or as spread out as I had remembered.
And I never realized how long the duck and the chick were Joey and Chandler's pets!
I also learned that if you watch Friends too much, your brain cells will die.
You could say, "Well, that's true of all sitcoms," but I beg to differ. I have seen Frasier all the way through at least twice, and I've never felt like too-many-episodes=death-of-the-brain.
The writing (in terms of jokes/lines) is equally good on both shows; the difference in brain cell killage, I believe, lies in an underlying fundamental difference: Friends is a show about people who endure. Frasier is a show about people who create their own destinies.
In Friends, everything that happens, happens TO the characters, even when they are the cause of those things. Ross's divorces are things that happen to him. Rachel having a baby is something that happens to her. Rachel and Ross getting married in Las Vegas is something that happens to them. It isn't so much that they are victims; rather, they are constantly at the mercy of LIFE.
Now, this isn't exactly a false truth. Things do happen to us that we simply have to handle. Despite Ayn Rand's remarkably silly assertion in Anthem, we do not single-handedly recreate our own societies on a day-to-day basis. We are communal animals and part of being a communal animal is enduring. Say I get into a car accident--I fill out the paperwork, get a new car with another loan, and keep working, etc. I don't go live in a tree somewhere.
But this "endurance plot" is the only truth Friends knows.
In Frasier, Niles leaves his wife (of two days) to be with Daphne. By any moral standard, this is a really rotten thing to do. But it never bothers me the same way Ross and Rachel bother me because Niles is fully aware of what he is doing. He makes the decision and bears the consequences. There is never any suggestion that this is something that just happened to him, oops, guess he has to live through it.
Frasier is filled with people who may not make the decisions I would make but who are MAKING decisions that result in them creating certain types of lives for themselves.
Friends is about people who never really seem to get this.
And lately, it seems like this "endurance plot" has become rather ubiquitous. Without naming certain popular teenage series . . . it seems like the heroes and heroines are all reactive. Things happen to them, and they bear up. They bear up well . . . magnificently . . . endearingly.
But nobody actually gets on with things. As has been said, "When the going gets tough, the tough get going."
Or, as Eugene said once, "When the going gets tough, the tough leave." The Puritans got tired of being martyrs and sailed to America where they suffered but also where they built an entirely unique existence/culture/future.
"Endurance plots," on the other hand, only allow for one outcome: staying put and suffering. The Puritans remain in Europe; the Americans never get to the moon ("Oh, the Russians are beating us into space! I guess we should gnash our teeth and feel bad about it. Errrrrrr."); Monet et al. give up fighting the establishment and nobody hears of Impressionism. And maybe these specific outcomes wouldn't bother you, but they sure would make history kind of dull.
However, my main problem with "endurance plots" is not historical. I don't think they (or Friends) are indicative of the downfall of civilization or whatever. (In fact, if I were pushed, I would state that Friends is the type of show that keeps civilization trundling along--so many cultural norms are reinforced by the show, it isn't exactly a status quo breaker. Note: I'm not a big fan of status quo breakers).
My complaint is more aesthetic than philosophical.
To illustrate:
I like romances and mysteries because the tough do something, even if that something is to physically/metaphorically walk away from the problem. One fundamental rule of romances is that the heroine must change; internally, she (and sometimes the hero) undergoes a transformation. She doesn't change civilization as we know it, but she learns and grows within her own framework.
One fundamental rule of mysteries is that between the beginning and the end, the murderer must be identified (by the characters) and removed from society (absent a deus ex machina, also by the characters).
These are not HUGE, AWESOME changes; they are minor, personal, local. But they matter at the minor, personal, and local level. And I care about these changes because characters I care about make them happen.
But lately, there's been an awful lot of heroes and heroines I really couldn't care less about. I mean, so they've endured all kinds of horrible stuff . . . so, um, yay? Snooze. Okay, give me a romance or a mystery.
As part of our sitcom list, Mike and I reviewed Friends. As a result of reviewing Friends, I ordered and watched several seasons.
Here's what I learned.
Friends is extremely well-written, not just per episode but per season. The writers pace the big events extremely well; they aren't as crowded or as spread out as I had remembered.
And I never realized how long the duck and the chick were Joey and Chandler's pets!
I also learned that if you watch Friends too much, your brain cells will die.
You could say, "Well, that's true of all sitcoms," but I beg to differ. I have seen Frasier all the way through at least twice, and I've never felt like too-many-episodes=death-of-the-brain.
The writing (in terms of jokes/lines) is equally good on both shows; the difference in brain cell killage, I believe, lies in an underlying fundamental difference: Friends is a show about people who endure. Frasier is a show about people who create their own destinies.
In Friends, everything that happens, happens TO the characters, even when they are the cause of those things. Ross's divorces are things that happen to him. Rachel having a baby is something that happens to her. Rachel and Ross getting married in Las Vegas is something that happens to them. It isn't so much that they are victims; rather, they are constantly at the mercy of LIFE.
Now, this isn't exactly a false truth. Things do happen to us that we simply have to handle. Despite Ayn Rand's remarkably silly assertion in Anthem, we do not single-handedly recreate our own societies on a day-to-day basis. We are communal animals and part of being a communal animal is enduring. Say I get into a car accident--I fill out the paperwork, get a new car with another loan, and keep working, etc. I don't go live in a tree somewhere.
But this "endurance plot" is the only truth Friends knows.
In Frasier, Niles leaves his wife (of two days) to be with Daphne. By any moral standard, this is a really rotten thing to do. But it never bothers me the same way Ross and Rachel bother me because Niles is fully aware of what he is doing. He makes the decision and bears the consequences. There is never any suggestion that this is something that just happened to him, oops, guess he has to live through it.
Frasier is filled with people who may not make the decisions I would make but who are MAKING decisions that result in them creating certain types of lives for themselves.
Friends is about people who never really seem to get this.
And lately, it seems like this "endurance plot" has become rather ubiquitous. Without naming certain popular teenage series . . . it seems like the heroes and heroines are all reactive. Things happen to them, and they bear up. They bear up well . . . magnificently . . . endearingly.
But nobody actually gets on with things. As has been said, "When the going gets tough, the tough get going."
Or, as Eugene said once, "When the going gets tough, the tough leave." The Puritans got tired of being martyrs and sailed to America where they suffered but also where they built an entirely unique existence/culture/future.
"Endurance plots," on the other hand, only allow for one outcome: staying put and suffering. The Puritans remain in Europe; the Americans never get to the moon ("Oh, the Russians are beating us into space! I guess we should gnash our teeth and feel bad about it. Errrrrrr."); Monet et al. give up fighting the establishment and nobody hears of Impressionism. And maybe these specific outcomes wouldn't bother you, but they sure would make history kind of dull.
However, my main problem with "endurance plots" is not historical. I don't think they (or Friends) are indicative of the downfall of civilization or whatever. (In fact, if I were pushed, I would state that Friends is the type of show that keeps civilization trundling along--so many cultural norms are reinforced by the show, it isn't exactly a status quo breaker. Note: I'm not a big fan of status quo breakers).
My complaint is more aesthetic than philosophical.
To illustrate:
I like romances and mysteries because the tough do something, even if that something is to physically/metaphorically walk away from the problem. One fundamental rule of romances is that the heroine must change; internally, she (and sometimes the hero) undergoes a transformation. She doesn't change civilization as we know it, but she learns and grows within her own framework.
One fundamental rule of mysteries is that between the beginning and the end, the murderer must be identified (by the characters) and removed from society (absent a deus ex machina, also by the characters).
These are not HUGE, AWESOME changes; they are minor, personal, local. But they matter at the minor, personal, and local level. And I care about these changes because characters I care about make them happen.
But lately, there's been an awful lot of heroes and heroines I really couldn't care less about. I mean, so they've endured all kinds of horrible stuff . . . so, um, yay? Snooze. Okay, give me a romance or a mystery.
New List on the Mike-Kate Video Club!
This time we are doing sit-coms. Both Mike and I realized, after deciding on the genre, that saying, "Let's do sit-coms" is like saying, "Let's eat 10 elephants!"
Consequently, we narrowed the list using some fairly rigorous (for us) criteria. First, we chose a theme: friends and family. Then, we set aside sit-coms like News Radio because it is more work than friend-oriented as well as Fraiser and 3rd Rock From the Sun because they are fairly broad in their approaches (family, friends, work, aliens, the arts, romance, university life, etc. etc. etc.).
We also set aside British sit-coms. (Hey, we'll get to them someday!) And, finally, we kept the list to 10. A vast number of family-oriented 80's sitcoms did not make the final cut.
Here is the list:
1. Bosom Buddies: Review December 10th
2. Golden Girls: Review December 17th
4. Big Bang Theory: Review January 7th
5. Friends: Review January 14th
6. Dharma & Greg (cross-over between friend-oriented sitcoms and family-oriented sitcoms): Review January 21st
7. Family Ties: Review January 28th
8. Cosby: Review February 4th
9. Full House: Review February 11th
10. Home Improvement: Review February 18th
Our plan is to watch the pilot and then review a selection (our choice) to report on. Please feel free to do the same!
Consequently, we narrowed the list using some fairly rigorous (for us) criteria. First, we chose a theme: friends and family. Then, we set aside sit-coms like News Radio because it is more work than friend-oriented as well as Fraiser and 3rd Rock From the Sun because they are fairly broad in their approaches (family, friends, work, aliens, the arts, romance, university life, etc. etc. etc.).
We also set aside British sit-coms. (Hey, we'll get to them someday!) And, finally, we kept the list to 10. A vast number of family-oriented 80's sitcoms did not make the final cut.
Here is the list:
1. Bosom Buddies: Review December 10th
2. Golden Girls: Review December 17th
BREAK: MERRY CHRISTMAS!
3. How I Met Your Mother: Review December 31st 4. Big Bang Theory: Review January 7th
5. Friends: Review January 14th
6. Dharma & Greg (cross-over between friend-oriented sitcoms and family-oriented sitcoms): Review January 21st
7. Family Ties: Review January 28th
8. Cosby: Review February 4th
9. Full House: Review February 11th
10. Home Improvement: Review February 18th
Our plan is to watch the pilot and then review a selection (our choice) to report on. Please feel free to do the same!
Character-Driven versus Plot-Driven!
In our reviews of Monk, Mike and I discuss the character-driven versus plot-driven show. We represent the sane/moderate views on the issue (since we like much of the same things and agree on what's important--we're both fans of Red Letter Media, for example--but don't necessarily get the same things out of what we watch).
If you have an opinion on character-driven versus plot-driven, we'd like to read it!
If you have an opinion on character-driven versus plot-driven, we'd like to read it!
Introducing . . . The Mike-Kate Video Club!
My friend Mike and I are starting a video club (Mike's idea). The Mike-Kate Video Club operates like a book club. Participants will discuss 10 videos (one per week) at a time. The videos will be selected by Mike and Kate and will follow a theme. The first set will run over the summer and will tackle the pilot episodes of science-fiction and fantasy shows.
Here is the first post AND a link to the blog (it's new!):
The first list includes mostly science-fiction and fantasy shows. There is one exception—Bones—which, although not a science-fiction show, fits thematically with X-Files. The order of the episodes does follow a thematic arrangement (Whedon's shows together; space opera shows together; British shows together), but the arrangement is somewhat loose.
The last instruction is from me. I rarely read comments on other people's blogs because I find the adolescent bad language and idiocy so annoying. Call it censorship if you want, but Mike and I are the moderators, and if we don't like it, it goes (which doesn't mean you can't disagree with us, just you have to disagree intelligently).
http://mikekatevideoclub.blogspot.com/
Addendum: #8 has been changed. As Mike pointed out, Babylon 5 has a movie and then catapults you into the show (like Battlestar Galactica). So we changed #8 to Sarah Jane Adventures, Episodes 0-2.
This should be the only change!
Here is the first post AND a link to the blog (it's new!):
The first list includes mostly science-fiction and fantasy shows. There is one exception—Bones—which, although not a science-fiction show, fits thematically with X-Files. The order of the episodes does follow a thematic arrangement (Whedon's shows together; space opera shows together; British shows together), but the arrangement is somewhat loose.
Feel free to watch ahead, but please save comments about a pilot for that pilot's "due date." The "due date" indicates when a post will appear for that video. Spoilers are accepted (i.e., you can mention future episodes of Buffy in the Buffy commentary). Bad language and asinine comments ("You're stupid if you don't agree with me") are not; such comments will be removed.
- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer: "Welcome to the Hellmouth," June 4th
- Firefly: "Serenity" (the REAL pilot, not the aired pilot), June 11th
- X-Files: "Pilot," June 18th
- Bones: "Pilot," June 25th
- Roswell: "Pilot," July 2nd
- Supernatural: "Pilot," July 9th
- Star Trek: Next Generation: "Encounter at Farpoint," July 16th
- Sarah Jane Adventures: 0-2, July 23rd
- Red Dwarf: "The End," July 30th
- New Doctor Who: "Rose," August 6th
The last instruction is from me. I rarely read comments on other people's blogs because I find the adolescent bad language and idiocy so annoying. Call it censorship if you want, but Mike and I are the moderators, and if we don't like it, it goes (which doesn't mean you can't disagree with us, just you have to disagree intelligently).
Addendum: #8 has been changed. As Mike pointed out, Babylon 5 has a movie and then catapults you into the show (like Battlestar Galactica). So we changed #8 to Sarah Jane Adventures, Episodes 0-2.
This should be the only change!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
