Big Love

In keeping with my attempts to wrap up everything I said I'd do this summer, today I finished watching Big Love. The series sort of finished behind my back, and even though it looks like a lot of people were debating the series finale online, I somehow missed the discussion, and had to catch up. So, to add to the rabble just a bit too late, here are my thoughts:

First, lot of people complained about the show's climax. I will not be one of them. If I learned one thing from Jurassic Park, it's that the enemy you have most to fear is not the one before you, but the one that lies in wait hidden. So it is with dinosaurs and so it shall ever be with politics.

Though I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call Big Love "thought provoking," I have to admit to feeling the final season left me with a lot to think about. I'm not one to object to plural marriage. I tend to think marriage should be left entirely to churches, and that definitions about who can constitute a single marital unit should be defined by those particular groups, leaving the government out of it except in investigating abuses. So I didn't expect that I would be one to feel judgmental about the relationships bridging Bill, Barb, Nicki, and Margene. I realized as I watched the series conclude that I'm totally wrong about this. I've been consistently waiting for this marriage to fail. I've seen Nicki as the Villain, Margene as the Victim, and Barb as the Real Wife. I saw Barb as trapped in a house of crazy people because of a bad decision made on her death bed; I saw Margene abused by a motley crew of people who couldn't possibly love her; I hated Nicki without much thought.

The final two seasons and the final episode really changed my perspective. This show was never about Bill and his bed-hopping; it was always about a very delicate, if sometimes dreadful, relationship between the three principle women. Barb sacrifices monogamy, but she doesn't lose Bill. Nicki is hateful, yes, but Barb loves her anyway. Margene sacrifices absolutely everything, but she gains a family in return. These three sister wives are less sisters and more one another's wives, and I think beyond all of the drama on the compound, this show actually did a great job of showing what a successful marriage might look like between three people. I say three and not four because Bill, in my estimation, fails where his wives succeed. He makes no compromises, lives only for his own vision, and thus cheats himself and those around him of the rich relationship that results from continual mutual grown and accomodation. I suspect from the series finale that the writers felt this too and saw a real need to turn the focus to Barb, Nicki, and Margene.

I also feel a weird disconnect between where the show left off--with polygamy newly highlighted as a debate in American politics--and where we actually live, in a nation happy to praise the characters on this show (as they do--in countless comments sections of episode reviews, and on message boards about the show), but not to rethink our legal ban of the practice. So, Big Love has finished, as has the Warren Jeffs trial. It's the end of an era. I have absolutely no idea what I'll pay attention to now when I want plural marriage scandals, or gratuitous compound footage. Cheers to you, Big Love. Thanks for keeping Chloe Sevigne away from upsetting movies like Gummo, at least part time.*

*But, did it? Apparently she made a Herzog movie** at the same time.

**I might have to see that.

Bones vs Castle

Most people I know who watch Castle also watch Bones. In a way, this makes sense; both are hour-long murder mystery shows, available online. Both have smart strong leading women, and lots of gore. But I gave up on Bones a long time ago. Erica asked me, very reasonably, to explain the difference between them--I mean, the difference that makes me love the one and hate the other. Exactly what she said is this: "Remind me about the differences between Castle and Bones... cuz they usually have exactly the same murder scenarios." She's right, of course. And not only do they have the same plots, they are each other's top recommendations on Hulu--an indication that the list of people who watch both shows is not limited to Erica, Dave, and my mother. 

Becket vs Bones: creepy smiling contest

Both shows have sort of freaky-looking, excessively angular female leads who give oddly flat performances. I prefer looking at Stana Katic over Emily Deschanel. It is purely subjective, and you are allowed to disagree.

The male leads (both Joss Whedon alums, for whatever that's worth) are similarly...nope, there's just no contest here. Both are sort of rugged masculine dorks, but come on. No question, Nathan Fillion is as much better in every way than David Boreanaz as...well, as Firefly is better than Angel.

In many ways, Bones is more of a science fiction show than a detective/police show. It is full of implausible futuristic scientific devices, and most of the characters are scientists, not detectives. This does not automatically make Bones a worse show, but it sets the bar higher for certain things. Because Bones is so willing to toss around fancy imaginary technology, and break all the rules of the natural world, it should be much MORE creative, and instead it is, as E pointed out, pretty much the exact same murder mysteries.

Both shows have flat secondary characters, but Bones makes me scratch my head and make horrible, horrified faces at the TV much more often, with its bizarro notions of How Smart People Behave--Temperance Brennan often doesn't understand things about human behavior for comic effect then understands them perfectly in the next scene. Each of the minor characters has exactly two traits (smart and socially awkward; artistic and bisexual; honorable and sporty; young and psychoanalytical), and they rarely make it through a scene without mentioning each at least once.

Castle is not perfect either. The daughter character, who at first seemed more like a person than most teen girls on TV, has gotten more sappy and child-like in every episode. If the show lasts, in two more seasons, she will be Richie from The Dick Van Dyke Show.

this is what that would look like

Also, I don't particularly want the will-they-won't-they-sexual/romantic-tension to drag on for twenty seasons. Those relationships (and there are dozens of examples, in every genre of TV show) inevitably begin to feel insincere and manipulative.

Those are the two things I hate about Castle.These are things I hate about Bones:
1. Toyota advertizing is weirdly and unwinkingly integrated into the show
2. Bad science
3. Bisexual who marries a dude. (Note: I don't feel like tracking down the facts, but I think this plot took place on Bones during the same season when queer women chose to be with men on both House and Nip/Tuck. There should be a term for this, making characters temporarily gay for ratings. Like maybe, "Nielson-gay.")
4.Totally unbelievable gimmicky unresolved sexual tension.
5. Weird imaginary science, when the show never seems to think of itself as SF

I put Castle in the same broad category as Psych--it's a perfectly good show that is occasionally very witty. Bones tries too hard, takes itself too seriously. And while it might occasionally be interesting or even surprising, it's never witty.

  GoAnimate.com: Bones by lydia.nichols

Like it? Create your own at GoAnimate.com. It's free and fun!

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons

I'm wondering if the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons episode of Community counts as genre parody. Is it fantasy parody? Or is D&D parody almost its own genre? I've been thinking about this since Thad shared the Dragonstrike D&D tutorial they posted on io9.



But really, this question has been lurking in the back of my mind since we discovered the heresy that is AFI's top ten fantasy films. What really constitutes fantasy as a genre? Does fantasy mean something loose and undefined? Am I the only one who thinks that fantasy must have the essential elements of a D&D campaign?

This list is just as inscrutable as AFI's list. Ghostbusters and Superman? Is it just me or are these something else entirely? Is this another case of me overspecifying genres for the sake of especially satisfying classification? You should see my mp3 and e-reader libraries. I have a separate category for unnecessarily sad contemporary British pop.

D&D has a surprisingly developed television history. It ran as a cartoon in the early 1980s, and its role in the finale of Freaks and Geeks was then (and continues to be I think) really popular.
I think the Freaks and Geeks episode, in fact, has a lot in common with D&D on Community. The premise evolves around getting an otherwise cool person to play, and even love, a campaign. In F/G there's one popular guy--James Franco. In Community it seems like there are two regular players and everyone else is the odd man out. Both episodes actually play a bit of the campaign, I'd go so far as to say Community gives you a whole campaign, albeit abbreviated. I want to say it's a bold move, but I guess when the entire premise of your show is that it follows a band of lovable outcasts, well, I guess you're already playing for the D&D crowd.



Freaks and Geeks used D&D to give the series a sense of closure, and it worked. It was a believable way to tell viewers that people who are really different in life can adopt commonalities through fantasy. Community seems to be writing fantasy into its structure more explicitly. As Michael pointed out, genre parody is its best running gimmick, and as io9 blogged, the genres Community most often uses are Sci fi and fantasy. In a way, I wonder if watching Community satirize fantasy can give me some clues as to its genre. Parody is actually a great way to identify the traits of a genre. Terry Pratchett has taught me easily as much as George R.R. Martin. So, I might start posting a bit more about fantasy, and what constitutes fantasy as a genre. I'm still working up to that X Files post, don't worry.*

* You didn't.

Note to all who watch 30 Rock obsessively

and think to themselves "Was that funny commentary on racism, or was that racism?":

Behold. They're having the argument for us over at Tiger Beat Down.

The Outer Limits S1E2: The Hundred Days of the Dragon

Our impending election has, for a couple of weeks now, far out weighed murder, haunting, or monsters in its ability to keep me up at night with fear, so I thought I would return to reviewing with an episode of The Outer Limits whose subject is the political fears that drove us in the 1960s and that continue to drive us today. The Outer Limits is never really scary, but it's about things that are, and usually those things are far more mundane than the frights that stalk the protagonists of most of the movies I watch. I won't ever be drugged and paralyzed such that I retain consciousness while my girlfriend slowly pierces my eyes with acupuncture needles, or chops off my foot with wire sharpened to slice through bone. Those things exceed the horizons of my social life. I am, however, deeply afraid of who sits behind the desk in the oval office, and if the media is any indication, many many people are afraid that this person could soon be a terrorist. As the title of this episode so subtly indicates, "The Hundred Days of the Dragon" plays on our fears of a communist Asia, and the slow infiltration of communists into the jobs and even bodies inhabited by those we love. It's invasion of the body snatchers for the conservative fringe: if our enemies possess **science** how will we prevent them from injecting our leaders with a substance that turns their bodies into malleable plastic for a duration of exactly two minutes? The episode proceeds pretty much as you expect it to, except for two moments. Dictator Li Kwan surveys the white house, gloating that he will conquer the West (or at least the West Wing) without firing a shot. Later, in the film's triumphant conclusion, the new American president opts to prosecute those involved in the systematic infiltration of the US's highest political and economic positions, but to waive his right to go to war. The film concludes with a heavy handed meditation on the nobility of avoiding war, even in those situations in which we are baited beyond comprehension. No one in this episode, arch villain included, wants war. The Outer Limits didn't scare me, nor did it make me adjust my tv set, rather it made me NOSTALGIC FOR THE 1960s, which is so much worse.

Every year I gear up for Halloween by watching Holiday episodes of Buffy, Home Movies, etc. This year it's election tv, which basically keeps me sane while I frantically check the 538. I've stolen hours in Lydia's living room watching Tanner '88, and because she is awesome, she just linked me to an article that will keep me feeling warm and happy regardless of the ominous October weather. Go vote, and if you want to be terrified on Halloween, Fox News is the new Takashi Miike.