Thursday, May 29, 2008
I Enjoy Themselves
"At this point in time I would give my left nut to play [YEM] five times in a row every day until I die."
Monday, May 26, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Barack the Nominee, Barack the Author
"Out of his story, he has also drawn the central promise of his campaign: if a biracial son of a Kenyan and a Kansan could reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable in himself, a divided country could do the same."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/us/politics/18memoirs.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/us/politics/18memoirs.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Friday, May 09, 2008
Legend or Loser, or both
To commemorate the Seinfeld series finale's tenth anniversary, Newsweek ran two pieces this week discussing the relative merits, and lasting appeal, of the entire series. I thought I'd weigh in.
On the pro side, David Noonan points out much of the obvious: the way Jerry and the gang elevated the minutia of everyday life into high comedy, the way the cast of supporting characters reinforce the sense of complete lunacy that defines Jerry's world, the way Seinfeld and co-author Larry David play off one another to create "the tension that gives the show its unique character." He also loves the sets.
But Marc Peyser, having drawn the short stick, I assume, has the more difficult job of cutting the behemoth down to size....and, what do you know, he raised some good points. "The problem is, we've changed, and the Seinfeld gang hasn't." Instead of penetrating with serious character study, or using comedy to make colorful social (or political) commentary, Seinfeld was content to fill its episodes with "an awful lot of clothes jokes. And food jokes. And car jokes."
The change critique, here, is essential. Change is not only the essence of all good characters, its the essence of all good drama, of all good entertainment. The careful TV and film-makers construct stories that are essentially always of a trifold nature: the introduction of a character and an obstacle; the increasingly escalating stakes of the conflict between the character and his or her enemies; and finally the resolution of said conflict, often resulting in a lesson learned for the character, the audience, or both. But even within that blueprint, TV and film must break down their characters and their worlds even further, often constructing each of those three dramatic elements into scenes that follow the same pattern, and breaking those scenes into beats that do the same, and then breaking those beats down further into three separate pieces in which an element is introduced, challenged, and changed. The best TV shows and films can change character in three simple lines of dialogue. Or in two lines and an action. Or in a line, an action, and a music cue.
Anyway, the point is that drama -- and comedy, in different ways -- is focused on conflict, and conflict necessitates change. But thats what the Seinfeld gang never did, and although their hijinks were always hilarious, it is interesting and informative to evaluate their impact on current TV. Take, for example, my two favorite shows: 30 Rock and The Office. Now both shows have the zaniness of Seinfeld, so in that respect Seinfeld is influential, but both shows allow their characters a level of humanization that make Seinfeld's look like caricatures. In just about every episode, Liz and/or Michael are forced to rise to some occasion, and their success or failure teaches them something about theirselves, or their coworkers, or the Source Awards ("Oprah was right: people just want to love each other and get free stuff."
I don't think, therefore, that it's ridiculous to both love Seinfeld and question its methods, to wonder if its influence is not as far ranging as it could have been. And that's my two cents.
On the pro side, David Noonan points out much of the obvious: the way Jerry and the gang elevated the minutia of everyday life into high comedy, the way the cast of supporting characters reinforce the sense of complete lunacy that defines Jerry's world, the way Seinfeld and co-author Larry David play off one another to create "the tension that gives the show its unique character." He also loves the sets.
But Marc Peyser, having drawn the short stick, I assume, has the more difficult job of cutting the behemoth down to size....and, what do you know, he raised some good points. "The problem is, we've changed, and the Seinfeld gang hasn't." Instead of penetrating with serious character study, or using comedy to make colorful social (or political) commentary, Seinfeld was content to fill its episodes with "an awful lot of clothes jokes. And food jokes. And car jokes."
The change critique, here, is essential. Change is not only the essence of all good characters, its the essence of all good drama, of all good entertainment. The careful TV and film-makers construct stories that are essentially always of a trifold nature: the introduction of a character and an obstacle; the increasingly escalating stakes of the conflict between the character and his or her enemies; and finally the resolution of said conflict, often resulting in a lesson learned for the character, the audience, or both. But even within that blueprint, TV and film must break down their characters and their worlds even further, often constructing each of those three dramatic elements into scenes that follow the same pattern, and breaking those scenes into beats that do the same, and then breaking those beats down further into three separate pieces in which an element is introduced, challenged, and changed. The best TV shows and films can change character in three simple lines of dialogue. Or in two lines and an action. Or in a line, an action, and a music cue.
Anyway, the point is that drama -- and comedy, in different ways -- is focused on conflict, and conflict necessitates change. But thats what the Seinfeld gang never did, and although their hijinks were always hilarious, it is interesting and informative to evaluate their impact on current TV. Take, for example, my two favorite shows: 30 Rock and The Office. Now both shows have the zaniness of Seinfeld, so in that respect Seinfeld is influential, but both shows allow their characters a level of humanization that make Seinfeld's look like caricatures. In just about every episode, Liz and/or Michael are forced to rise to some occasion, and their success or failure teaches them something about theirselves, or their coworkers, or the Source Awards ("Oprah was right: people just want to love each other and get free stuff."
I don't think, therefore, that it's ridiculous to both love Seinfeld and question its methods, to wonder if its influence is not as far ranging as it could have been. And that's my two cents.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Monday, May 05, 2008
Presidents and would be's, in ars
First off, how 'bout that John Adams. What a jerk. Disowning his son like that. HBO's recently concluded mini-series seemed intent on driving the point home that, guess what, the founding fathers were fallible. Did you know Jefferson raped slaves and, on top of that, had a prickly personality? And that Ben Franklin could be domineering and philandering? And Hamilton...woa boy, don't even get me started. Not only did these people have ideas, it turns out, but they also had lives, wifes and sons, teeth and farms. Well, what do you know?
It seems, though, that HBO, for a change, got it just right. The highlight of this impeccable mini-series, I think, was the use of oblique camera angles, mostly for establishing shots but also when the drama got most intense or otherwise warped. The slant mirrored the oddness we felt, playing voyeur to our most famous Americans' lives, and it set the tone for the high drama, and melodrama, that became the focus of these stories. But Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney--who last played house in the 'oh my god I'm flying to Los Angeles I'll watch anything' Nanny Diaries-- will both surely be adding Emmys (Emmies?) to their already crowded mantles. But I also suspect that Stephen Dillane will have many doors opened to him on the basis of his portrayal of Thomas Jefferson, having stolen every scene every time.
These episodes served as interesting contrast to two other presidential depictions I've seen in the past few days. The first was a painted portrait of Hillary Clinton, which displayed the Senator and former first lady bare-shouldered, sitting in a bathtub, staring straight at us, while the artist, in self-portrait, sat equally naked next to her, but in profile, looking at the candidate with inquisitive wonder. A friend's friend had purchased the painting from the painter for $1000. It was definitely a conversation piece.
The portrait of Barack Obama I saw under an overpass in Philadelphia, a spray-painted, half-reverse silhouette of the Senator in his true form: jacket off, sleeves rolled up, one hand clutching a microphone, another extended in explanation. His hands and face were black, but his white shirt was simply the color of the concrete, with only a slender black chord extending from the ground to the microphone.
It seems odd that Mr. Arugala should be the one in spray-paint, tucked away at the place of least inspiration, offering quiet comfort to a crumbling city, whereas Ms. Gas-Tax-Holiday should be the one for whom an ivy-league artist would dedicate her summer holiday. It just goes to show how warped of a narrative we receive from the media, who, as far as I can tell, run cover stories based solely on how clever of a cover the graphics compartment can dream up. Is Barack Obama doing so well in cities not just because of upscale liberals and african-americans, or because his message really resonates with the urban poor and disenfranchised in a way that doesn't translate, yet, with rural voters? Is Hilary doing so well with older females not only because she is an older female herself but because she generates the most trust among a voting bloc that consistently views the issues of national security, economics, and environment as paramount? Can newsweek stop reprinting the same old polls?
It seems, though, that HBO, for a change, got it just right. The highlight of this impeccable mini-series, I think, was the use of oblique camera angles, mostly for establishing shots but also when the drama got most intense or otherwise warped. The slant mirrored the oddness we felt, playing voyeur to our most famous Americans' lives, and it set the tone for the high drama, and melodrama, that became the focus of these stories. But Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney--who last played house in the 'oh my god I'm flying to Los Angeles I'll watch anything' Nanny Diaries-- will both surely be adding Emmys (Emmies?) to their already crowded mantles. But I also suspect that Stephen Dillane will have many doors opened to him on the basis of his portrayal of Thomas Jefferson, having stolen every scene every time.
These episodes served as interesting contrast to two other presidential depictions I've seen in the past few days. The first was a painted portrait of Hillary Clinton, which displayed the Senator and former first lady bare-shouldered, sitting in a bathtub, staring straight at us, while the artist, in self-portrait, sat equally naked next to her, but in profile, looking at the candidate with inquisitive wonder. A friend's friend had purchased the painting from the painter for $1000. It was definitely a conversation piece.
The portrait of Barack Obama I saw under an overpass in Philadelphia, a spray-painted, half-reverse silhouette of the Senator in his true form: jacket off, sleeves rolled up, one hand clutching a microphone, another extended in explanation. His hands and face were black, but his white shirt was simply the color of the concrete, with only a slender black chord extending from the ground to the microphone.
It seems odd that Mr. Arugala should be the one in spray-paint, tucked away at the place of least inspiration, offering quiet comfort to a crumbling city, whereas Ms. Gas-Tax-Holiday should be the one for whom an ivy-league artist would dedicate her summer holiday. It just goes to show how warped of a narrative we receive from the media, who, as far as I can tell, run cover stories based solely on how clever of a cover the graphics compartment can dream up. Is Barack Obama doing so well in cities not just because of upscale liberals and african-americans, or because his message really resonates with the urban poor and disenfranchised in a way that doesn't translate, yet, with rural voters? Is Hilary doing so well with older females not only because she is an older female herself but because she generates the most trust among a voting bloc that consistently views the issues of national security, economics, and environment as paramount? Can newsweek stop reprinting the same old polls?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
