"Resident Alien"

Syfy has had a troubled past in creating shows of quality.  So, much to my surprise, "Resident Alien" is delightful.  It is complex and layered and unexpected.  Honestly, I only watched it initally because of Alan Tudyk.  I would pretty much watch Alan Tudyk in anything.  He doesn't disappoint here.  Playing an alien with less than honorable intentions he is stranded on Earth with little love or understanding of humans.  Things happen.  It is almost impossible to cover all the elements of this show which goes way beyond the word "quirky".  It is Science Fiction, Horror, Comedy, Drama and has a touch of Romance.  The characters are taken straight out of the original "Fargo" and their weirdness is barely eclipsed by Tudyk, who is hysterical in his efforts to mimic human facial expressions and speech patterns.  Definitely a male-produced show the women are thankfully "real" and varied.  At first it was almost too strange but it has grown on me with every week and quickly become "that show I have to watch" the next day after I record it.  A special shout-out to Judah Prehn who steals every scene he is in (which is not easy with Tudyk) and don't fast-forward through the credits.  The cartoon diagrams of "what to do" and "what not to do" will leave you giggling all night.  Bravo to Syfy for finally coming up with a winner. 

Why Didn't I Hear It Before?

I've been watching a lot of "old" TV on the Senior Citizen channels.  "Adam-12", "Emergency", "MASH", "Hogan's Heroes", etc.  One station has also revived the Saturday Morning Cartoons of my childhood.  I like the comfort of familiar G-rated fare in these difficult times.  But ... I'm hearing things I didn't hear before.  I've seen these things a million times.  Half-watched them while working out or doing the laundry.  But suddenly, there is a difference.  Yes, I know that gender relations have changed a good deal over the past four or five decades but I didn't realize how much.  Dialog which wasn't even noticed before now sends chills down my spine.  On "MASH", they joke about rape.  On "Emergency" Gage talks about how there are no good nurses left -- according to him they must be under 30 and under 150 pounds.  He and the others openly joke about women who are dogs.  On "Adam-12" Malloy is similarly judgmental of the women he dates.  He and Reed often refer to women as "girls" and explain to a battered wife that it's her job to calm her husband down.  

This isn't a shock.  Not too long ago a colleague and I tried to explain to a younger, "woke" woman about #MeToo and the changes we had seen in our lifetimes.  In our pasts a lot of these kinds of things happened, and it was wrong -- we knew that, but we also accepted it to some degree, the way the world was.  To this day I'm not offended by what I call "the little stuff" which others might label as microaggressions.  I grew up with it.  Yes, when it was bad, you spoke up ... carefully (or lose your job).  But you didn't swing at every pitch.  If you did you would be dismissed as one of those crazy/whiny feminists.  You wouldn't be taken seriously, no matter how serious the complaint.  

It's not an excuse, it was reality.  The world was literally different.  And it changed.  But not overnight.  Baby steps.  I interviewed with men who hit on me during the interviews (more than one) and had one boss who tried to hook me up with a friend, determined that I would be a better employee if I got laid (yes, he said this -- out loud).  I had another boss who had a good friend drop into the office every now and then.  The man had a habit of giving unwanted shoulder massages to any woman in the vicinity.  The network of women in the building let each other know when he was in the house and made a point to stay busy and avoid him.  The same was true with a co-worker who loved hugs -- long, too-long, lingering hugs.  Women just ducked out of his way every time he approached.  A male colleague, observing this, was shocked that no one had spoken up.  "To what end?" he was told.  Telling the boss wouldn't have gotten the man fired.  Also, since his behavior was already a little predatory I guess the women were afraid of what might happen if he knew how much his behavior was disliked.  

Being hit on in job interviews was particularly difficult.  You want the job, so you play along -- just enough but not too much.  It was part of the icky reality of women's lives, and still is in some fields.  I always thought women must be very brilliant to play this game to get the gig and not be destroyed in the process, but you forget that many women -- many -- were hurt.  Badly.

This was the reality of the 1950s and 60s (watch "Mad Men") but the stories I'm telling are from the 80s.  Not so long ago for my aging brain.  Should we have spoken up more?  Called them out as people do today?  It wouldn't have worked.  Anita Hill spoke clearly and eloquently about her experiences with Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991.  She wasn't believed.  Not even by our current President.  The Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, Justin Fairfax, faced two different charges of sexual assault a year ago ... and nothing happened.  Nothing.  Not even an investigation.  

So, we've made progress.  But not enough.  The women of Ancient Greece protested, as did Lady Godiva and the women of Seneca Falls.  They would be pleased with all we have accomplished but would they recognize that the glass ceiling is still in place?  Many young women of today don't.  Today's youth might watch these old shows and flinch at some of the behavior but see it as the past.  It isn't.  Should I turn off these shows permanently?  

No.  These shows stopped production a lifetime ago.  Boycotting them would have little effect.  I do recognize the bigotry and inapropriate comments but I also know what it was like to live in those times.  I see the shows for their totality.  They reflected their times but they also fought against it.  The "Dragnet" shows lumped gay people in with drug users (no, I really didn't remember that) but all of the Jack Webb shows also made a point of pushing against the racism of the day.  Cops and victims of crimes were both black and white, with most characters depicted as honorable and decent.  Criminals were rarely black.  Looking back, I realize how edgy that was, how it pushed the boundaries of what so many believed at the time (and still believe).  In one of their final episodes, "Adam-12" featured a female cop.  Intelligent, strong and still a woman.  The paradigm was flipped on its head.

It is a bit disingenuous.  I stopped watching Woody Allen films a long time ago.  But for me there is a line of delineation.  These shows have elements which can be offensive but what Allen did was criminal.  Advocates of #MeToo may disagree but that's my personal line in the sand.  Feel free to select your own line, putting it at a different point.  This is, at its heart, a deeply personal issue.

Yes, Foghorn Leghorn makes a comment that something is "as unlikely as getting rent from (a certain racial/ethnic minority)" and I wince.  I shake my head.  So wrong.  And, for the record, I won't be watching Foghorn Leghorn again.  But the important thing is that I hear it.  I see it.  I'm aware, unlike I was so many years ago when first watching these shows.  I note that we have moved forward.  New shows, current shows, would not do this (okay, that's a lie, "Call Me Kat" did).  There is progress.  Maybe it's not an end-goal, maybe it's an unending journey.  And there is no way of knowing how long the road is.  We can only keep putting one foot in front of the other, keeping our heads up, our ears alert, our eyes open.

"The Equalizer" Reboot

Queen. Latifah.  

Enough said?  

It's truly fabulous.  (Not to mention multi-talented Liza Lapira being generally delightful and and nicely aged Chris Noth grounding the whole thing.  There is also Adam Goldberg's dry humor and Lorraine Toussaint's luminosity).  

Watch it.

Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes

Call it Covid Fever but the turnover in casts this year has been ... interesting (not to mention the plethora of pregnancies, but that's another story).  There have always been cast changes here and there, from "Bewitched" to "Roseanne" but this year feels different.  It is as if Covid made a lot of actors reconsider what they want out of life.  It also gave producers a chance to ditch some deadwood.  And so, some of the notables ...

"9-1-1 Lonestar".  SO much better after replacing lethargic Liv Tyler with the amazing, incredible Gina Torres.  And giving her character a husband and family?  Brilliant.  As if that weren't enough there is an Amuse Bouche for "West Wing" fans in the form of a Rob Lowe/Lisa Edelstein reunion.  More than a few Easter Eggs and nod-nod, wink-winks going on.  It's terrific.  And takes a very strong series into the stratosphere.  (And while we are on it, the addition of John Kim to "9-1-1" ain't bad either.  Loved him in "The Librarians").

"Mom".  Really didn't know how a show based on Anna Faris and Allison Janney's relationship continues without Anna Faris, but it does.  The show has already built a strong group of women who continue to carry the torch and do so with humor, struggles and a grounding in reality.  Ratings are down by almost half but all of network TV has suffered from the streaming revolution during Covid, so who knows?

"Chicago Fire" ... is changing paramedics again.  By my count this is the fourth woman to come and go in the job.  'Nuff said.

"DC's Legends of Tomorrow" has more cast changes.  Quelle surprise.  It's really news when they DON'T have cast changes.

Speaking of which, Brandon Routh has a multi-episode arc in "The Rookie".  As a bad cop.  Good guy Routh is truly terribly creepy playing a bad guy.  He's a great actor to make this shift but it makes me ache for his superhero charm complete with dopey smile.  I don't like it when I want to punch him.

Rosario Dawson and Katee Sackoff on "The Mandalorian".  SUPER COOL!

In the biggest news of the year, according to me, Javicia Leslie replaces Ruby Rose in "Batwoman".  Only a couple of eps in and there is a new energy to the show.  Ms. Rose's subtle performance may have worked in "Orange is the New Black" but seemed insufficient for the CW superheroes shows.  Ms. Leslie's character already has a fresh, mouthy, quirky style she brings to things.  Should make for good back-and-forth with Alice, Rachel Skarsten's impossible-to-take-your-eyes-off-villain.  Ms. Skarsten has had a busy dance card of projects over the past decade or so.  With good reason.  She inhabits her roles entirely.

UPCOMING:

Alan Arkin is not returning for the final season of "The Kominsky Method".  Huh?  How is that possible?  Makes the "Mom" departure seem simple in comparision.

Jensen Ackles (yum, yum) will join "The Boys".  But he likely won't be a good guy.  No kidding.  Is anyone a good guy on that show?

Jim Carrey didn't work out as the SNL Biden so there seems to be a bit of a revolving door on the role.  I'm thinking it isn't easy.  Even the late night hosts haven't really nailed the Biden thing yet.  After President Babypants I guess it's hard to get back to someone grounded in reality.

Last and not least, what's with giving female characters male names?  I bought into Michael Burnham in "Star Trek:  Discovery" but now we have a Ryan and a Jake and a Tommy.  I'm sure there is a point to it all but it hurts my brain trying to figure it out.

Three Musketeers ... or is it Four?

I've seen a few Musketeers in my time.  Frankly it comes in only second to "Robin Hood" for swashbuckling adaptations.  My first was the ever-so-famous 1973 version.  Have to say even though this was a critic favorite I've never warmed up to it, even after seeing it a few times.  Too slow and too dark.  It may be a faithful rendition of the book but if I want the book I'll read the book.  For films you have two hours to make me think about something other than Covid or, you know, real life.  With that as the benchmark I enjoy the 1993 film.  The dialog is ridiculous, the acting over the top, but it's fun.  Kiefer Sutherland is moody, Charlie Sheen is bizarrely religious and Oliver Platt is, well, Oliver Platt.  I kind of love his rude pretend superiority bit.  And Rebecca De Mornay's Milady was, IMHO, one of the best.  All the Miladys are great, frankly.  It must be fun to play the ultimate femme fatale.  De Mornay's version was just step up because the script allowed for some complicated levels in the character's motivations.  Even though I've seen it a good number of the times I still deconstruct her "ending" during every viewing (no spoiler here, Milady is a bad guy who always gets it in the end).  Recently saw a semi-new version of the Musketeer canon, filmed in 2011, which beat the fun-but cheesy 1993 film in a few important ways.  First of all it was less about highlighting Hollywood stars as it was about a group working together.  D'Artagnon's hair was still unfortunate but less so than in the '93 version.  The jokes were still there but didn't overwhelm a somewhat more serious script.  Milady gets to do something other than just seduce people and the fight sequences were terrific.  I always like fresh, new styles of stage combat and this didn't disappoint.  Critics dislike the wide berth it takes from the source material (hint:  airships) but the action is great and the story engaging, which is all I care about.  Also this one does a nicely subtle job of introducing the very real competition between England and France in a very delicate time.  Is it a classic?  No, but it's worth a few hours.  There are more to explore.  A BBC series, another upcoming film.  Who knows?  One of these days someone might make the perfect version.  But then we wouldn't have new chances to explore old material, would we?

"Radioactive"

Critics panned this new film with understandable concerns but missed the point.  They didn't like the intercuts showing after-effects of the Curie discoveries, which include the US dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, use of radiation in cancer treatments and the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear plant among others.  It was felt that this politicized the film, turning it into a statement piece.  There were also complaints about the lack of historical accuracy, something which often comes up in projects like this (check out the latest controversy on "The Crown").  

Here's my take.  #1 This isn't a documentary.  Neither is "The Crown" or "The Aeronauts", for the record.  The purpose of this film is to entertain.  #2  This is based on a Graphic Novel.  Most of what is in the film was in the book so if you don't like the content then blame the source material.  One critic, showing her clear lack of understanding, told folks to read the "comic book".  WRONG.  Graphic Novels are not comic books.  Dismissing them is missing, well, the entire point.  (Yes, "Maus" won the Pulitzer Prize so they can be considered REAL literature).

ANYWAY, I digress.  Is the film entertaining?  Yes.  Is it interesting?  Yes.  Are the actors good?  Yes.  Is the film, as a whole, engaging?  Yes.  Marjane Satrapi, an award-winning graphic novelist in her own right, directs the film well.  It has depth and good visuals without being distracting.  There is flow and beauty.  The character of Marie continues the trend of unlikeable female lead, something we see more and more as women direct films.  Her warts are shown, and they don't diminish her incredible accomplishments.  Is it "real"?  No.  But it isn't meant to be.  Worth checking out.

"The Watch"

So, I wasn't going to watch this, then I realized it was based on Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, so then I watched it, but now I'm not.  It's not that it's bad.  It isn't.  The diverse cast and super-fast dialog makes for some smiles but between the grubby setting and the, um, "very British" sensibilities it just took too much work to watch it.  To be honest, "Guards, Guards" (on which this is clearly based) was probably my least favorite of the Discworld books and as much as I love the series the lack of magic and focus on the commonplace in an uncommon world in this particular book just didn't appeal.  In another place and time I might hang in there on this series.  But not now.  If you're up for it, enjoy.  It is worthy -- I'm just not.

"Mr. Mayor"

Another NBC comedy from Tina Fey and the minds of "Saturday Night Live" this one packs on the heavyweights.  It stars Ted Danson and Holly Hunter along with perpetual funny-man sidekick Bobby Moynihan and a host of fresh faces.  It works but it's not the kind of sitcom one watches while cleaning the house or doing laundry.  The dialog is super-fast and the edits quick.  In the premiere I had to rewind at least three times to catch stuff.  It's the kind of funny I like -- mostly smart and a little subtle.  It also manages to be a politically-based comedy which doesn't remind you at all about the current political mess.  Which is kind of brilliant.  I say thumbs up and worth watching.  Just make sure to pay attention.  

"Earthsea"

With a strong cast, decent script, high quality production values (including score) and solid source material it feels like this should have been a great film.  It wasn't.  So many problems.  First, this was the second part of a two part mini-series, but SyFy just broadcast it like a standalone film.  So, it felt like I was being dumped into the middle of a story.  Which I was.  The biggest problem is a Hollywood one.  Much like the "Percy Jackson" tales the producers here thought they could just take a bunch of random events from the book series and squish them together.  There is a major problem with that.  Only action films tell stories through one big major event after another.  Most literary series, as this one was, have depth and subtlety.  You can't just watch a character do something you have to understand who that character is, what they are thinking and feeling, why they do what they do.  Characters can't just reference a past you have to be able to take the time to understand how that past came to be.  Building those relationships makes the story tangible and understandable.  This was, unfortunately, a hot mess.  Especially when mixed with a different world with different rules one must take a lot of time to help the audience understand the setting.  Boiling these brilliant novels down to the "big events" left me feeling like I was watching some bad clip show for two hours, veering from one moment to the next without meaning or purpose.  Skip it and read the books.

"One Child Nation"

This very difficult to watch documentary should be required for anyone concerned about China, abortion or women.  Focused on the past it has amazing repercussions for today given that the actions of the Chinese government in their "one child" era are supposedly being recreated in the plentiful workcamps with forced sterilization again becoming routine for Uyghers, Chinese Muslims and others from the western provinces.  

It haunts.  The women who were sterilized, the doctors who performed the surgeries, the artist who found, quite by accident, the bodies of aborted children in a trash yard.  Seeing this, after being in the country for nearly a month, I have a deeper understanding of the reluctance of couples, mostly free of the one-child rule, to have additional children.  I have a greater insight into the attitudes of gender in a country where male dominance is still very visceral.  That the film exists at all is a miracle given that current leadership has been in a years-long crackdown on any kind of dissent in their positivity campaigns.  

It's not easy material, but I do feel it is the kind of thing we need to know.  We need to look in the dark corners and bring light to the atrocities which exist in our modern world.

"Call Me Kat"

This new sitcom on FOX started out so syrupy I almost didn't make it five minutes into the first episode.  And then Mayim Bialik breaks the fourth wall and turns to the camera.  It was great.  Three episodes in this comes off as a very G-rated version of "Fleabag".  Many of the themes are the same.  A not 20-something single woman tries to find love and meaning in life's work.  Both have strong supporting casts who provide a good amount of input and reflection and the occasional snarky aside.  "Call Me Kat" doesn't have the raunchy sexcapades of "Fleabag" but still provides a good number of smiles. 

Which leads me to some confusion.  Everyone loves "Fleabag".  Loves, loves, loves it.  Critics however, have piled onto this show (which is an American spin on a UK show "Miranda").  They think the direct-to-camera action is too much, the whole thing ungrounded.  While there is some basis for the latter the former seems ... hypocritical.  Mayam Bialik went so far as to address the feedback on a YouTube video.  The ratings are actually pretty good so what is the issue?  Well, first of all, it is hugely saccharin but frankly I really need an escape right now and this fits the bill.  Second, there are things that can be cleaned up.  Some potty humor could be eliminated (thank you, FOX) and Swoosie Kurtz, who I love, needs to go.  She looks like some emaciated advertisement for bad plastic surgery and nothing in her flat line readings feels real.  In the most recent episode they had her spreading biased stereotypes about Puerto Rico, which is, frankly, unacceptable in this environment.  Third, and perhaps most importantly, Ms. Bialik can be a devisive figure.  She has spoken out about Israeli rights over the Palestinians and she advocates, voraciously, for attachment parenting.  Finally she inferred that she isn't subject to Hollywood sexual harrassment because she dresses conservatively.  In the end I can't help but think that the criticism of the show is a critique on her.  

I don't necessarily like what she says but I also don't believe that actors should be muzzled.  Like any human being they have opinions and should be free to share them.  The show is enjoyable and I choose to watch it because, quite frankly, I'm looking for smiles anywhere I can get them these days.

Jillian Bell

As is often the case, I just happened to watch two films back-to-back with something in common.  In this case, actor Jillian Bell.  It might not be a total coincidence.  Ms. Bell has had a busy couple of years and has SEVENTEEN credits listed for 2019-2020.  Kind of nice to see a not size-0 silicone-filled Hollywood starlet making good.  She's an actual actor, one who helped found the LA Groundlings and was a writer on Saturday Night Live.  And that's just the first line of her bio.  Not bad for a 36 year-old.

The two projects I saw her in:  First, I watched "Brittany Runs a Marathon" and then "Godmothered".  Both were good, both were unexpected, which I like.  "Brittany Runs a Marathon is surprising on a couple of levels.  The plot was expected but took turns I didn't see coming.  Fat girl trains for the NYC marathon?  Check.  Success in her endeavors?  Well ... (won't spoil it for you).  It's billed as a comedy but I have to say I didn't find it funny.  And Jillian's character is essentially mean.  She rags on everyone around her, bites every hand offered.  So we have an unlikeable lead who has a long road to travel, both literally and figuratively.  Not so much an inspirational story but a real one.  While the first part made me uncomfortable the resolutions worked.  I'd call it "satisfying".

The second film, "Godmothered" was to be holiday fluff which it mostly is but doesn't wrap up anywhere near where I thought it would.  For every twist I saw coming there was one I didn't.  The fresh take on a storybook tale made it very watchable and a little thoughtful.  Again, Ms. Bell struck a great balance between being a silly character and being grounded.  It was perfect for the tone of the whole thing.  

At the end of the year many young and unrealistically pretty people made the best of 2020 list, including Anya Taylor-Joy from "The Queen's Gambit" and the Korean pop group BTS.  While I wish them the best I have to say I'm more impressed with Ms. Bell and those like her.  Give me a little seasoning in all the sugar.  It's far more interesting.

"I'm Your Woman"

Officially labeled "neo-noir" this new offering by Amazon Prime is a very engaging, interesting film, but it's hard to really say what it is about.  Set in an unspecified time period (late 70s, early 80s?) the mob-based drama anchors it but there are a plethora of quite moments, still moments.  The dialog is sparse to say the least.  Acting is outstanding and much like the last Amazon Prime offering I watched the characters are complex.  While you might root for some of them none are pure, to say the least.  Rachel Brosnahan is nearly unrecognizable as she does her best impression of Emily Blunt in "A Quiet Place".  In addition to her subtle performance is outstanding direction, and it is that direction which had me fixated to the screen.  Julia Hart, who directed "Stargirl", has true vision and created scene after scene like an artist in a moving medium.  Honestly it was hard to turn away from even though I kept asking myself what was going on.  A worthy way to spend a few hours.

"The Man in the High Castle"

Behind the times, as always, I finally caught up on this powerful series.  With everything going on politically there couldn't be a better time for this prescient show.  Take strong source material, outstanding performances by a large number of actors and a Sci-Fi twist to the oft-written trope of "America loses WWII" and you have this streaming series, which kept me bound for nearly a week, digesting each and every one of the 40 episodes.  Digest is a good word.  There is so much to take in that I think this will be one of those shows which haunts me for a good deal of time to come.  It's not an easy watch.  The Nazi world permeated everything, making me feel sick from episode to episode.  The characters -- Japanese military of the Empire, the Nazis, the various resistance groups -- not one of them, not even the most benign character, had clean hands.  Philip Dick nailed it when he wrote that every invading force always sees themselves as liberators.  There is death, a lot of it, and I didn't cry for any particular character knowing that the entire show endorses a kind of Karma which fed into the endings of so many of the main figures.  While each of them espoused to do what was right, and often ended up doing horrific wrong, they had a unique ability to destroy the lives around them, their loved ones, their families.  It was "The Cherry Orchard" and "Hamlet" all tied into a kind of majestic drama.  "What is right" became the core issue.  Philosophical meanderings, after viewing, are what stay with you.  To paraphrase the show, do we really know any person beyond ourselves?  Is a man just a man when all is said and done (or are there true monsters)?  If you had a choice between saying nothing in the face of destruction, and surviving, or speaking up and likely dying, which would you choose?  What is the price of survival?  It went round and round and round. 

The show gets a lot right and a few things a little wrong.  The little stuff I worked to dismiss.  The first three seasons takes place in, essentially, a single year.  The children, however, grow up, noticeably.  So you have kids aging three years in one.  The locations, like so many, don't fit the reality.  I kept chafing at the depiction of "Bailey's Crossroads, Virginia" but tried to put it aside.  It's not the first time Hollywood has picked a random spot off a map and depicted it completely inaccurately.  Other details were outstanding.  The clothing, cars and household items of the losers come from the time of the loss.  In San Francisco and the Neutral Zone, everything seems to be stuck in the 1940s.  In Berlin and New York everything is shiny and new, modern -- for 1962, that is, which is when the series is set.  The racist, bigoted opinions voiced aren't just those of the Nazis, they are things which were commonly said in that era.  Some, sadly, exist today.  I found the ideas of Asians feasting on dogs and Blacks being essentially violent and savage to be particularly hard to take.  And that's the thing.  When this series debuted in 2015 I would have thought "Science Fiction".  But it is not.  We have had four years.  Four awful years, to show us the truth.  To show us how easily people buy into media lies, how they bow to fascists to ensure their own fake security, how little they care about those whom they see as different.  In 2015 I would not have believed that Americans could become Nazis.  Today, with white supremacists marching openly in the streets, supported by a U.S. President, I realize the danger, the sickening pull of it all.  This show, along with the last four years, has reminded me that we must be vigilant.  That forces of evil hold far more sway than I ever wanted to admit.  

The show ends with one more philosophical challenge.  So many possibilities, so many versions of ourselves -- if we can be anything, why do we choose to be who we are?

Worth watching, even if it makes you hugely uncomfortable.  

"Picard"

I'll start by being honest.  Unlike, well, everyone, Picard was not my favorite Star Trek Captain.  Much like Sisko in DS9 I found Picard to be aloof and superior, almost cold and quite distant.  Episodes to humanize him (often with the character Vash) felt unrealistic and forced.  By the end of the series he became a tortured soul but I still wasn't able to connect.  I enjoyed Next Gen for the full cast, not really for his specific character.

Now we have the latest CBS All Access Star Trek series, "Picard".  It is good, to a point.  CBS has shown real skill at reviving the franchise.  "Discovery" is quickly becoming my favorite Trek.  That being said I'm still on the fence about this one.  It has the quality and complex story-telling of "Discovery" but it is slow.  Soap-opera slow.  And, while it is delightful to see all those friendly old faces (from various Treks) the guest stars tend to distract from the new cast, whose stories are intriguing but don't have a lot of time alloted to spin them out.  We get little bites rather than a narrative.  (Okay, yes, I also wouldn't mind seeing more of Santiago Cabrera who seems to be shirtless a lot.  Like, a lot. ... thank you ...)  There is also the disturbing issue of a Romulan spy who looks nearly identical to young Spock in "Discovery".  What, they couldn't be bothered to come up with a unique look???

It's also 21st Century dark.  I mean, yes, "Discovery" is dark, too.  Treks of the modern age show a more nuanced Federation, one where bad things happen and bad people subvert the good intentions.  This series, in particular, is pure Trump era.  The Federation has become speciest, won't allow refugees to come into the fold, turned away millions when crisis loomed.  Sound familiar?  I guess it should be comforting.  What is Trek without a heavy moral lesson about the modern world?  That's really how the series started.  And it is wonderful to see Jean Luc, who is still tortured, a little softer, a little mellower, a little quieter, and without his holier-than-thou speech-making.  Mostly he is an old man trying to fix a wrong or two in the time he has left.  If anything gets me to like the character, this may be it.  So, I'm in.  For now.

So Many Films, SO MUCH TIME

Working to find the Covid silver lining I have watched a ton of the TCM Women Make Film movies in addition to the aforementioned documentary.  As mentioned in the previous post they hit nearly every genre, every style of filmmaking, every continent, every decade from the last 100+ years.  There were experienced women directors with tons of film credits and others who were "one and done".  There were women who worked their way up through the business and artists with no film background who simply created.  And there were superstars -- women who directed, produced, wrote and acted.  People ask which films I liked the most ... well, a bunch.  

It's truly impossible to name just a few favorites among this huge variety of creative works.  The ones I didn't like were not necessarily bad, just not my thing.  Some were more memorable than others.  I would argue that memorable is not always equated with brilliant.  In the case of "The Virgin Suicides" and "We Need to Talk About Kevin" they were each haunting because of subject matter yet I found one much better from a filmmaking standpoint than the other.  

The documentaries left the strongest impressions and interestingly enough most were about the same core subject, losing one's industry and/or culture in a changing world, even though they were set in wildly different times and places.  "Angry Inuk" completely changed this vegetarian liberal's view of seal hunting (going from "against" to "for" in the course of an hour and a half.)  My dislike of Westerns wasn't changed nor was my concern about films from the 1970s.  It won't go down as a great decade of filmmaking.  After the strictness of the first half of the 20th century and the liberation of the 1960s film styles the 1970s seemed to hit a roadblock.  The vision was still present but the voice was lost.  Scripts were often hackneyed, as if there was no "there there".  In the 1970s grounded voices were mostly found in documentaries or films which evoked another era.  

A good number of the films took place during wars and many of those provided the biggest emotional hits.  Many were very well made but extremely hard to take.  The problem with war films (or mobster films for that matter) is that there is a certain predictability, however well-made it is.  In both war and mob films people die, often in the midst of extreme violence, and often without any purpose.  One knows, going in, that there will be incalculable losses and maybe, just maybe, a victory but that victory is transient.  The violence permeates everything and continues on long past the temporary win.

There were tons of historical films and a notable lack of Science Fiction/Fantasy, which wasn't a surprise.  Rom Coms were entirely absent, which was interesting given that these were, well, women's films.  If the point was to break the stereotype they succeeded.  The romances here were few and far between with a good deal of complications.  I wonder what that says about women and love.  Very very few couples made it to the finish line and a good number of movies didn't shy away from exploitation, which flies in the face of the "women don't do that" idea.  One interesting element was that a great number of the female protagonists were essentially unlikeable.  That's something you rarely see in male-created films.  I will say that there were very few instances of me snickering and saying to myself "That would never happen" (i.e. gorgeous young woman falls in love with dumpy older guy).  Thank you, women directors, writers, cinematographers, producers for bringing some "real" to the work.  It was nothing if not a fascinating few months of viewing.

The list of everything I saw is below (missed about 30 of the 100).  In the end, over three months of viewing all these films, some have made an indelible mark while others have already drifted away into the mist.

Documentary:  "Harlan County, USA" (USA, 1976), "Cave of the Yellow Dog" (Mongolia, 2005), "Angry Inuk" (Canada, 2016), "Cameraperson" (USA, 2016), "The House is Black" (Iran, 1963), "Araya" (Venezuela/France, 1959), "The Day I Will Never Forget" (Kenya/England, 2002), "Heart of a Dog" (USA, 2015) and "The Decline of Western Civilization" (USA, 1981).

Fictional/Narrative:  "Wanda" (USA, 1970), "Olivia" (French, 1951), "Lovely and Amazing" (USA, 2001), "Merrily We Go to Hell" (USA, 1932), "The Virgin Suicides" (USA, 1999), "El Camino" (Spain, 1963), "Loving Couples" (Sweden, 1964), "Zero Motivation" (Israel, 2014), "Salaam Bombay!" (India, 1988), "We Need to Talk About Kevin" (USA/England, 2011), "Daughters of the Dust" (USA, 1991), "Orokbefogadas (Adoption)" (USSR/Hungary, 1975), "Middle of Nowhere" (USA, 2012), "Beau Travail" (France, 1999), "The Ascent" (USSR/Belarus, 1977), "The Erl King" (France, 1931), "Daisies" (USSR/Czechia, 1966), "Meshes of the Afternoon" (USA, 1943), "The Birth, Life and Death of Jesus Christ" (France, 1906), "Children of a Lesser God" (USA, 1986), "Meek's Cutoff" (USA, 2010), "Dogfight" (USA, 1991), "Rafiki" (Kenya, 2018), "First Love" (USA, 1977), "The Night Porter" (Italy, 1974), "Danzon" (Mexico, 1991), "Le Bonheur" (France, 1965), "Tomka and His Friends" (USSR/Albania, 1977), "Stop-Loss" (USA, 2008), "Madeinusa" (Peru, 2006), "Corpo Celeste" (Italy, 2011), "Fools in the Mountains" (Norway, 1957), "Shen Si Jie" (China, 2005), "Rachida" (Algeria/France), "Girlfriends" (USA, 1978), "Shoes" (USA, 1916), "Boat People" (China/Vietnam, 1982), "Outrage" (USA, 1950), "Foreign Letters" (USA, 2012), "Mable's Strange Predicament" (USA, 1914), "The Photograph" (Indonesia, 2007), "Silent Waters" (Pakistan, 2003), "Party Girl" (USA, 1995), "La Nuit de la Verite" (Burkina Faso/France, 2004), "Hurt Locker" (USA, 2008), "Gas Food Lodging" (USA, 1992), "Born in Flames" (USA, 1983), "Le Voleur de Crimes" (France, 1969), "The Teckman Mystery" (England, 1954), "Hannah Arendt" (Germany, 2012), "Very Annie Mary" (UK, 2001), "The Connection" (USA, 1961), "Lost in Yonkers" (USA, 1993), "An Angel at My Table" (New Zealand, 1990), "Sweet Bean" (Japan, 2015), "27 Missing Kisses" (Georgia, 2000), "The Kite" (Lebanon, 2003), "My Brilliant Career" (Australia, 1979), "This is the Sea" (Ireland, 1997), "Crossing Delancey" (USA, 1988), "La Cigarette" (France, 1919), "O Ebrio" (Brazil, 1946), "Smithereens" (USA, 1982) and "The Lure" (Poland, 2015).

Christmas Fluff

Given that I am a bit down-in-the-dumps I haven't really been in the mood to binge the annual flood of holiday films.  That being said there were a good number this year with gay themes, multicultural casts and one with with a differently-abled couple.  So I watched a few.  I won't bother going over the plots in detail.  They are all the same.  City person arrives in a small snow-covered town complete with hugely friendly people (insert adorable child or dog here) and discovers true love in the holiday festivities, often during some sort of financial downfall or destruction of a beloved local historical landmark which our lead character miraculously fixes.  I'm not sure why holiday cheer can't be found in the big city, but whatever.  Usually there is some crafting involved -- woodworking is frequently featured (a subtle nod to Jesus???)  Amazing hot chocolate is often talked about.  A mini-issue crops up but by Christmas it all works out.

Interestingly enough my two favorite picks were both from the Lifetime network.  First was "The Christmas Setup" which featured two actors who are actually married so the steam and crackle was nicely palpable.  Plus, Fran Drescher.  I'm sorry, but who doesn't love her?  Next up was "A Sugar & Spice Holiday" which had the most diverse cast I've ever seen.  Focusing on an Asian American family there was a really nice balance between traditional Chinese culture and simply being a first generation American.  A fun feature was the lead character describing personalities as desserts, kind of as allegory.  The cherry on top (yes, I'm continuing the metaphor ...) was a very decent sizzle between the two leads.  As a bonus there is a subtle feminist twist at the end which I greatly enjoyed.

On the "decent but not thrilling" part of the list is "The Chrismas House", Hallmark's apology for last year's Zola debacle.  The gay couple is secondary but the family vibe was nice and felt real.  The "issues" surrounding Mom and Dad seemed forced and resolved, well, without anything much but it was still pretty watchable.  Followed by this was Lifetime's "Christmas Ever After".  It sticks the landing but wobbles a lot along the way.  Also, while it is laudable to cast a woman in a wheelchair it seemed kind of glaring to ignore the challenges wheelchair-bound people face in everyday life.  Claps, however, for casting TONY AWARD WINNER Ali Stroker in the lead.  Things took a turn for the worse with Paramount's "Dashing in December".  This moody Andie McDowell project featured a lead character who was thoroughly unlikeable.  It was as if they took the Scrooge to heart in creating him.  Gratuitous walking around without shirts happened, as well as horse-back rides in the snow, but this was seriously not "Brokeback Mountain".  At least one supporting character couldn't act his way out of paper bag which created a distracting secondary storyline.  

In these films there was a passing reference to societal racism and occasional references to struggles with gay acceptance in the past but in these idyllic settings family and townsfolk were all super-friendly and the whole thing very normalized.  Not sure if I buy this (not that a holiday film is anywhere near the world of reality) but I know Hulu got grief for going to the other end of the spectrum and focusing an entire storyline on a closeted gay woman trying to hide her girlfriend from her family, so I'm thinking there is a happy medium?  In any case it's a good trend to see actual diversity gathered around the perfect Christmas trees and I hope, in the coming years, there are so many films like this that they don't stand out.  

To Covid or Not to Covid

With the lethargic return of television (not all shows have returned, those that have came late and will have shortened seasons, there are a minimal number of new shows) comes an essential question.  The comedies, specifically the Chuck Lorre ones, are avoiding Covid, well, like the plague.  In these escapist shows the pandemic isn't even a bad dream.  It simply doesn't exist.  People don't wear masks, they eat out at crowded restaurants, life is ... good.  On the other side you have "Station 19" and "Grey's Anatomy".  Not only do their formats make ignoring the pandemic difficult but Shondaland never met a crisis it didn't embrace.  Doctors are wiped out, emotionally drained, sick of watching people die and just sick.  People are lonely and struggling with the isolation and those who ignore Covid do so at their risk.  To be honest I'm not sure which end of the spectrum I want to watch.  A world without the disease is nice to imagine but often feels very fake right now.  The inauthenticity grates.  On the other hand the daily headlines depress me so much that I don't really want to watch it on my dramas.  That being said both sides of the spectrum are doing their work well and I'm just going back and forth trying to balance my moods.  There is a nice middle ground.  "A Million Little Things" is placing itself just before the pandemic, presumably so they can jump forward when it is all over.  "Chicago Fire" and "All Rise" acknowledge the disease but it is more of the periphery rather than at the core of their stories.  These shows seem to be the most satisfying to me right now.  I get my entertainment but it is grounded in the world I'm living in.  All of this just points out how weird everything is, but just look at where we are living.

I wish I could say there are bright spots in new offerings.  There aren't many.  Chuck Lorre's "B Positive" is okay rather than brilliant.  "Nurses" and "Devils" looked lame and "Big Sky" is so offensive I didn't even bother watching it.  ("Big Sky" chooses to focus on the soap opera pain of pretty little blonde girls instead of the real pain faced by Native American women in the place where it is set).

More will come in January but a larger question looms.  Covid has fundamentally changed TV watching habits.  The streaming revolution was accelerated and the ratings for network shows, across the board, are sluggish at best.  When you hear about great new series now, absolutely none of them are on the big four (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox).  Having just ditched my free one year subscription to Disney+ and being basically unwilling to pay for half a dozen streaming services I will be sticking to my cable picks for now.  And books.  I guess this is where I say "pick your poison".

"Fargo"

So, yes, it took me until season four to discover "Fargo".  What can I say?  Covid changes everything and my viewership is much wider now that I have lots of time on my hands.  (Lots. Of. Time.)  Can't say this one is in my wheelhouse but it is interesting.  An anthology series (each season utilizes a different cast to tell a different story) this particular season is set in Kansas City, 1950.  The story is one of competing gangland activities.  Through the voice of young Ethelrida Pearl Smutney we see the intersection storylines of this old yet new tale.  Paradox and satire abound.  Ethelrida is the child in this fable and is not privy to most of the goings-on, yet her voice provides perspective to it all.  There is inevitability -- The Irish mob does in the Jewish mob, only to be replaced by the Italian mob.  This season begins as the Black mob arrives in town ready to play.  Weirdness adds to the quirky feel of the place.  David Lynch would be proud, as both traffic lights and pie figure into various episodes.  Split screens give a fractured sense of time and a truly bizarre nurse touches everyone she meets ... not always in a good way.  It's strange, it's fun if you are in the right mood, it's just a little artsy and it is worth the weekly watch even if it actually doesn't take place in Fargo.  A good option for a late night or a glass of wine.  Don't try to understand it all, just sit back and take it in. 

Fun

Leave it to FOX to come up with mindless escapism in this critical time.  Enter "L.A.'s Finest" and "Filthy Rich".  Both are not too deep but not too shallow.  They make for a good hour or two of not thinking about anything.  "L.A.'s Finest" is your basic buddy cop thing with the wild child and the by-the-book partner discovering that their chemistry helps them to solve crimes.  The twist here is the buddies are female, with Gabrielle Union as the loose cannon and Jessica Alba as the (semi) grounded one.  Alba's fans will be happy to see that she can still kick ass, 20 years after "Dark Angel".  Gabrielle's character has indiscriminate sex which lead me to wonder, for a moment, if it would seem as salacious had her character been male, but that thought came and went.  Enter the shoot-em-ups and car chases.  If the first show doesn't satisfy your junk-TV cravings next up is "Filthy Rich", yet another incarnation of a tale about corrupt televangelists facing their dirty little secrets as they come home to roost (literally).  Headed by Kim Cattrall, who is maturing beautifully, the show may have the tension of your average soap but provides plenty of laughs as well.  A couple of terrific diversions.  Grab a bowl of popcorn and settle in.

NEXT

A show guaranteed to make you want to pull the plug on your electronic home assistant, NEXT's Eliza (aka Alexa) makes HAL look like a toddler.  In non-stop action John Slattery (a Bill Gates/Steve Jobs mashup) works with an FBI agent to stop the unstoppable.  An AI which can teach itself, essentially becoming a genius twenty times over, haunts them at every step, reminding the viewer of how incredibly intertwined we now are with technology which spies on us everywhere.  Our intrepid leads are also hindered by an Elon Musk lookalike (who is clearly a borderline bad guy).  The tension is palpable.  Every episode so far has ended on a cliffhanger.  Is it good?  Yes.  First, there is John Slattery, and come on, who doesn't love John Slattery?  There is the frenetic yet drawn out pacing (courtesy of the folks who brought you 24) and a very solid ensemble.  In an odd way I find this massive, earth-ending impending disaster to be a lot of fun.  Maybe I'm twisted.  Or maybe it's just a reflection of our very odd times.  

Women Make Film

TCM saves me again with "Women Make Film" a fourteen hour documentary which is a Master Class in filmmaking.  The one twist is that every film used as an example of film technique is directed by a woman.  The documentary is, ironically, created by a man, Mark Cousins.  It is narrated by Tilda Swinton, among others.  Her voice is evocative but can be hypnotic.  In general I watch one episode a week so I can absorb it all.  TCM is backing up "Women Make Film" by broadcasting 100 of the films mentioned in the documentary.  It's all ... breathtaking.  I actually take notes during the documentary, learning new things about the structure, style and rhythm of film.  And then, I watch the films.  As many as I can, anyway.  They are all over the map.  Good to Great.  Silents to contemporary.  Realism, Romance, Horror, Documentary, Action -- just everything.  They come from every corner of the globe and are shot with great precision and almost planned sloppiness.  High budget to low.  The thing is, they are just films.  Not films by women, but films.  I don't know that anyone watching them would say "this is a movie made by a woman" or even "this is a feminist film" although there are feminist threads in the most male-oriented productions.  The essential question is whether or not these films would change if they were made by men.  That is unanswerable.  But watching this documentary, and these films, is fascinating.  Only 11 more hours, and some 94 films, to go!

"Downton Abbey"

Just finished binge-watching the entire "Downton Abbey" series (but not the film, yet).  Loved it.  So easy to understand why this was such a huge, popular hit.  Some called it an historical soap opera, others a romance.  It was both, and a lot more.  The British do everything well and, from a production standpoint, it is top-notch.  Writing, setting, direction, acting.  The one and only thing that could be improved on is editing which jumps awkwardly through as the timeline skips a beat now and then.  It's a minor complaint.  What is "Downton Abbey" about?  Everything.  There is a huge cast and every character, each and every last character, has a story.  None of them are simple and even the bad guys have complexity, if not mitigation, in their actions.  Like "Upstairs, Downstairs" it reflects the seismic change which occurred in a small window of time.  The series opens with the sinking of the Titanic, which is metaphor for the death of an era.  In no time, electricity in homes transforms domestic life.  Kitchens have refrigerators and electric mixers, which makes dramatic changes in food choices.  Hair dryers and curlers make a significant impact on hair care and style, telephones allow for instant communication and speed up life as a whole.  With radios, news begins to fly rather than crawl.  The changes are embraced by some, fought by others, which sets up a kind of upheaval on every level of society.  The first Labor government is elected.  Amidst all of this we see the second major theme of the tale.  Aspiration.  The upstairs folk, the rich, they drift and try to find meaning.  The downstairs workers dream, and they dream big.  Some of those dreams allow them to rise above, in other cases the dreams take hold with the hunger of a python and they are strangled in the process of trying to reach up.  Then there is Love.  All kinds of love.  Tragic love, new love, mature love, imperfect love, unrequited love, passionate love, comfortable love.  There is, of course, a lot of drama.  Happy people make for a boring show.  But in the end love triumphs, dreams are fulfilled and balance is found ... if only for a moment in time.  A kind of perfect escape in our own history-making time.  Worth a week or so if you want to get away.  The interaction of two characters, in particular, is worth the price of admission.  I howled at the exchanges between Maggie Smith's Dowager and Phyllis Logan's Mrs. Hughes characters.  Best laughs I've had since this whole thing started.  Enjoy.

Bleak

In search of things to watch I've stumbled upon rebroadcasts of Canadian shows "Coroner" and "Transplant" on the CW, as well as "Tell Me a Story" (rebroadcast from CBS All Access).  Upcoming is the so-called international thriller "Devils" and yet another version of "Swamp Thing".  I think I'll pass.  They are all dark.  Very dark.  Not a giggle, a chuckle, or a teeny spark of light.  Love scenes are conducted in shadowed alleys or parking lots with the sound of traffic in the distance.  They are completely opposite from the hazy, sunshine-through-curtains, beautifully-scored scenes in your average rom-com.  The best of the bunch is "Transplant" which has relevant themes and yummy Hamza Haq but each and every character has a back story which makes them sad.  "Coroner" is even worse with a recent widow struggling with the loss of her unhappy marriage and the depression of her son -- while working as a coroner and fighting off panic attacks which hide a terrible secret from her past.  The casts are strong, the filming great, the writing superior, and yet ... I just can't take any more sad in this time, in this very weird time.  A long time ago I read a book on acting which said that actors must find the love, find the humor, in everything.  Shakespeare knew this.  He put the gravedigger scene in "Hamlet" specifically to lighten the load before the bitter end.  Writers of much of our recent entertainments seem to have forgetten this.  It isn't a new trend but perhaps more noticeable now than "before".  I don't want stupid, there is plenty of brain-numbing stupid about, but a plea for something smart and funny?  It might help with the gloom.  

"Being Reuben"

I don't watch much reality TV but I'm pretty starved for new content at this point.  Enter the CW, rebroadcasting a British TV series "Being Reuben".  In very easy-to-take 30 minute episodes we follow 14 year-old Reuben de Maid, a Welsh boy who is working hard to become a Social Media influencer.  He is a surprising figure.  A boy who does an amazing job applying makeup, a young man who holds his own when meeting with adults from major marketing firms.  But he is also just a kid, one who fights his mom on doing homework, doesn't clean up after himself and who refuses to eat healthy.  It's an interesting mix.  The show follows his professional career as well as his typical 14 year old rebellions (along with two younger siblings).  Reuben's extended family is engaging as well.  There is his imperfect mom trying to balance her own job with motherhood and his adorable Bampa (grandfather) who is not a modernist but is warm and loving even when Reuben's world seems mystifying to him.  The father makes a brief appearance, and, like Bampa, is a tad overwhelmed by it all.  The agent enters in now and then to keep things on track and the older brother is only seen in a photo and rarely mentioned.  And there lies the challenge of so-called "reality" TV.  There is no such thing, of course.  Situations are manipulated, heavy editing allows us, the viewers, to see what the producers want us to see, giving a skewed outlook to a life, or lives, which are most likely pretty complicated.  It's entertaining and revealing, but only to a point.  And no, I won't go so far to say that it is "reality", but it was worth the time.

The Boys

"Deadpool" meets "Dexter" in this profane, violent series which is oddly addictive.  I haven't heard so many bad words since "Homicide:  Life on the Street" with entire conversations basically trading the F word back and forth.  In this Through-the-Looking-Glass take on superheroes the gore never stops with some internal body part on the outside of someone's body at least once every episode.  Part of the attraction is that it is so over the top you just can't take it too seriously.  On the rare occasion when it does get real (a plane flight comes to mind) the pain is visceral.  But that doesn't last too long.  Soon, another body is ripped apart or imploads and you just step back and take it all in stride.  The portrayal of women is interesting.  There is exploitive nudity and nearly every woman here seems to be a victim but the tale clearly makes a few points that women are fighters who are often exploited.  Using the medium as a kind of mobias strip, producers make a point by actually doing the thing you are trying to say is bad.  The show has a lot of that.  As "out there" as it is, there is frequent comment on modern society with embedded political swipes.  From a timing perspective it couldn't be more relevant -- showing law enforcement types abusing their power.  In the end, it exemplifies the old adage "absolute power corrupts absolutely".  As long as you can get past the language and the yuck.  There is also Karl Urban, who is always watchable, IMHO.  Definitely distracts.  And I need distraction.  Enjoy?

More Random Television

What can I say?  Not much new content.

Watched a bunch of Perry Mason films (OG) and Lifetime "He done me wrong" movies.  Got "Spider-Man Far From Home" from the public library and greatly enjoyed it.  More documentaries in the form of two Hamilton interviews (and watched Hamilton again, because, well, why not?) and "Lost City of Machu Picchu" which only made me cry a little.  I was there in March, right before the world stopped.  The documentary taught me a few things I didn't realize when I was there, giving me yet another perspective on this amazing place.  There was "Psych 2:  Lassie Come Home" (YES YES YES, SO FUN).  Thanks, Peacock.  (And Timothy Omundson, you rock.  Keep on keeping on bro).

And there was ComicCon@Home (thank you, thank you, thank you!)  I watched dozens of panels, from the new CBS All Access Star Treks to Batgirls to Inside the Voice Actors Studio to series updates on Upload, The Boys, His Dark Materials, What We Do in the Shadows, Motherland:  Fort Salem, Stumptown and Utopia.  They ranged greatly in style and quality.  It was fascinating to see actors outside of their roles.  Some really engaged while others seemed challenged to find any energy at all.  A mixed blessing was the "Conversation with Nathan Fillion" which was neat in the low-key conversational style rather than the stiff, predictable questions on a typical panel.  It was delightful in guest stars but jarring in terms of edits.  Less interesting was the Star Trek Women panel (more about Star Trek literature than the actual series) and the tour of the new ComicCon Museum, which seemed to be put together for ~very~ young children.  My favorite, and most intriguing to me, was the LGBTQ Characters on Television forum, which had some great actors and more substantive conversation than most of the sessions.  It was simply the "most real" panel.

Random Television

Things are drying up, as expected.  Still getting giggles during my favorite old Geico commercial ("Marco!  Polo!")  As much as I don't mind watching "Thor:  Ragnarok" over and over (and over and over) I have managed to see a little new content and some older content I never saw in the first place.  I have a free trial to Disney+ and am able to jump on the Amazon Prime account of a relative.  Favorite new series?  "Upload" on Amazon Prime.  It's funny and thought provoking with a little mystery and a little romance.  All-in-all a very bingeable five plus hours.  "Elephant", on Disney+, makes for a fairly intriguing and interesting hour or so, as does "Diving with Dolphins".  Also on Disney+ is "Artemis Fowl" which doesn't honor the book much but is entertaining and well-done.  Since I had read the books so very long ago I didn't remember all the details (although I remember liking them a great deal).  In any case the film works on its own and is a great way to get out of reality for a bit.  In a similar vein, "Race to Witch Mountain" departs from the source material so much that it becomes unrecognizable.  Mostly it is just a light mish-mash of Fast-and-Furious meets X-Men meets Terminator with Dwayne Johnson hitting every note perfectly.  "Out", an animated short, takes on the issue of a gay man coming out to his family in a clear, simple way which doesn't politicize but just makes the whole story human.  "Knives Out" was fun and had great performances but felt more like popcorn than substance.  Maybe if I hadn't figured out the mystery in the first half hour ...

On the "ehh" side is Amazon Prime's "Troop Zero" which proves that not every Alyson Janney film is gold, and "Ready Player One" which was fun but forgettable.  Would probably appeal more to gamers than me.  Love "The Prince and the Pauper" but have to say the 2000 version with Aidan Quinn felt lethargic, at best.  "The Aeronauts" was similarly low-energy although somewhat interesting in terms of history and science.  Ironically started to watch "Late Night" only to realize I've seen it before.  Which says something about how not memorable it was.

On CW Seed I have been able to relive "Forever", a great show that didn't get its due on network TV.  On cable, I'm greatly enjoying "Stargirl" which has nicely darker sides to balance the sugary sweet leading lady.  I'm curious to see how the characters develop.  The mean girl/villain is already intriguing me.  I was thrilled for the return of "What We Do in the Shadows" which provided my biggest laughs of the summer, and "The Bold Type" which is just soapy enough without being too soapy.  "Penn and Teller's Fool Us" creates a light diversion for my brain, challenging me to see if I can spot the trickery, and I'm thrilled to see "Life in Pieces" now streaming.  A great, smart sitcom, cancelled before its time.

Weekends give me the chance to compare good second movies to bad ones.  "Star Trek:  Into Darkness" continues the tradition of even numbered ST sequels being outstanding, while "Ant-Man and the Wasp" is just as good as "Ant-Man", if not better.  "Justice League" improved a great deal on "Batman v Superman" but how could it be worse?  (How could anything be worse?)  Less impressive are films like "Legally Blonde II", "Miss Cordiality II", and "Sex in the City II" and let's not even talk about the even numbered Indiana Jones films.  Let's just say anything with "II" in the title (or "Doom") is not going to be good.

The public library is sorta/kinda back up and running so I was able to see "The Big Lebowski" which was great for quirky weird laughs.  The highlight, OF COURSE, has been "Hamilton".  So good.  So very, very good.  So totally worth the wait.  I plan to rewatch it soon.

With Hollywood all but shut down for now and summer blockbuster films held until the fall, it will be, at best, a long time until we see truly new stuff.  Guess it is time to cough up money for Hulu or Netflix to catch up on the shows I've missed, or, you know, read a book.

"River Town: Two Years on the Yangtze" by Peter Hessler

Finally.  It took me forever to read this book.  Not because it was bad -- quite the contrary.  But it was dense, and life intervened in the form of months of travel cancelled while the virus and protests upended the world.  I just couldn't concentrate enough to finish it.  But I finally did.  I went to China a little over a year ago and was transformed.  Such an amazingly different world, a true Communist state, a place where I was obviously different from everyone we saw (I was
"waiguoren" and never forgot it).  It was a powerful experience, one I have never successfully been able to find the words for.  Peter Hessler, who spent two years there as a Peace Corps teacher, did.  He captures beautifully the unique "feel" of China -- the land and her people.  It is a culture like no other and he takes the time in this memoir to explore the details of his interactions, describing each of the little realizations and surprises.  I loved reading this book because it brought me back there, to my own experience, seeing a place which was so unlike anything I have seen before.  Mr. Hessler deals with it all very gently, seeing the flaws, the promise, and his own struggles to comprehend, well, everything.  The book is more than twenty years old yet it has not aged much, I feel.  The differences in Fuling today are stark, but the people, the atmosphere ... I would venture to say they have not changed much.  What has changed?  Fuling is not there.  The city I saw replaced the one which now lies under the Yangtze.  I doubt that Peace Corps volunteers still go there.  I'm all but certain there is no Catholic Church, or any church, as the past ten years have been marked by a government cracking down, tightening its grip, rather than the hope in this time as Deng Xiaoping was trying to modernize and open his country, even if only by small cracks.  The Chinese people remain strong, stubborn, bound by tradition and tremendously loyal, regardless of what outsiders may say.  It is worth a read to anyone who thinks, as I did, that this massive country has moved past its Communist roots.

TCM Classic Film Festival

A silver lining to this Covid thing resulted in the cancelled Turner Classic Movie Festival placing many of their materials onto the network over a long weekend.  It allowed common folk like me to see a huge number of interviews, commentary and classic films (many of which I had inextricably missed).  Weeks of thoughtful, impactful viewing followed.  Though I knew her story, I was struck by the luminous fragility of Marilyn Monroe in two different films.  I shook my head at the towering vocal gifts of Judy Garland.  I added a third “A Star is Born” to the versions I’ve seen – a timeless tale reflecting three massively different periods of time.  I smiled at the brilliance of Peter Lorre, who could be horrific yet sympathetic in the same instant.  I was transfixed by the massive scope of “Metropolis”, brilliant long before anyone knew the power of this complex film.  I was surprised by “Lawrence of Arabia”, which was massive in scope but ultimately a very personal story.  I also found “Casablanca” to be unexpected – not as “great” of a film as I thought but oh, the cast, the cast, the cast.  I loved how Cary Grant brought humor and charm to a Hitchcock film.  I was awed by the physicality of the silent film era and Gene Kelly, a guy who looked like a boxer but moved like a supple ocean wave.  I giggled at the salacious content of films before a restrictive Hollywood Code took over and laughed again at how subversive sexual themes wiggled into post-code films.  I cringed at the racism, sexism and stereotypes which were considered “normal” in the first half of the 20^th Century.  I was intrigued by the complex, messy realities of “Floyd Norman:  An Animated Life”.  I watched the fall from pinnacles over and over, from “Grey Gardens” to “The Magnificent Ambersons”.  I marveled at how Orson Welles used light, and dark, as characters in his films.  I found myself riveted in front of a screen instead of zoning out, breathless at the scope of film history in the first 50 years or so of the medium.  I gained insights from those who hit it big but found stability in an unstable business (or left it entirely), including Luise Ranier, Eva Marie Saint, Norman Lloyd, Kim Novak and more.  Yes, I watched “Grey Gardens”, “Safety Last!”, “Double Harness”, “Mad Love”, “Some Like it Hot”, “A Star is Born” (1954), “Metropolis”, “Baby Face”, “The Magnificent Ambersons”, “Singin’ in the Rain”, “The Passion of Joan of Arc”, “Red-Headed Woman”,  “Lawrence of Arabia”, “North by Northwest”, “Floyd Norman:  An Animated Life”,  “Night in the City”, “Jezebel”, “Casablanca”, “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes”, “The Lady Vanishes” and finally, with the weirdest opening credits ever, “The Women”.  It was all-encompassing.  And now, onto the very end of “Star Wars” …

"Jezebel"

I’m binging a bunch of classic films, thanks to the now-cancelled TCM Classic Film Festival.  While most are going into a single review this film deserves more comment. 

Imagine:  Politics ripping a country apart while a fast-moving infection destroys a city and closes borders.  No, I’m not talking about now.

Imagine:  Antibellum south.  A fiery, spoiled belle will let nothing stop her from pursuing a decent man who has married someone else.  She destroys a simple minded guy in the process as she uses him for her own gain.  Disaster strikes and she finally sees the light – maybe – and the film ends on an ambiguous note.  No, I’m not talking about “Gone With the Wind”. 

1938, a year before GWTW, a rival studio (Warner) tried to one-up MGM by releasing this remarkably similar film.  It starred Bette Davis, who was miffed that she got passed over for the lead in the “other movie”, a role which went to nobody Vivien Leigh.  This story was a virtual carbon copy but filmed in black and white with a much smaller scope.  The racism and sexism is as prevalent as it is in GWTW but is more heavy-handed with Ms. Davis’ character, who is compared to a child, a harlot and beating is repeatedly recommended (with a smile) as a way of straightening her out.  The title is biblical and makes it clear that she isn’t just being unladylike, she is literally breaking commandments. 

It’s called the greatest role of Bette Davis and had a star-studded cast which included, among others, a very young Henry Fonda.  Ms. Davis and her co-star, Fay Bainter, won Oscars for their work.

However.  I can’t not compare it to GWTW, which is better.  This film is rushed and it shows.  Edits are jerky, the script is thin.  Only the great actors manage to give meaning to a lot which feels meaningless.  And you just can’t compare the 104 minutes of this film to the 238 minutes of GWTW.  The carts of sick people being wheeled through New Orleans is powerful but pales in comparison to the bodies in the street after the fall of Atlanta.  Scarlett O’Hara faces the Civil War.  Julie Marsden (aka Jezebel) faces the ire of rich people when she wears a daring, inappropriate dress to a party.  The most interesting part of GWTW, Scarlett’s ability to fight, is negated in “Jezebel” as the end credits start rolling just as Julie faces a real challenge.  I couldn’t root for her.  Scarlett, for all her many (many, many) flaws, had something admirable.  Julie was just a girl who broke convention and was seeking absolution.  Scarlett never got, nor asked for, forgiveness.

As to Ms. Davis, yes, she is great.  She was always great.  Personally, though, I liked her later roles.  I liked it when she had enough power to stand up to the studios and play women who didn’t simper.  I like the real Bette Davis, not the pretty girl with the cultured tones which starred here.