Watch This! Much Ado About Nothing

Remember when I told you how excited I was for Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing?

Well, last night I saw it.  And it was awesome.  And you need to see it too.  Four hundred year old spoilers ahead...

Via

Okay, I'm going to get the "cons" of the film out of the way so I can hurry on to the good stuff, 'kay?

Marry, as much as I adore Alexis Denisof, his performance in the first bit of the movie is a little wooden.  For the first couple scenes, I was quite aware that he was acting.  But he really hit his stride in the scene where Don Pedro, Leonato, and Claudio are setting him up to fall in love.  That bit of physical comedy seemed to jump start him, and from there on, all was well, and ended well, too.

Sixth and lastly, though I didn't see it, the Dude said the actress playing Conrade kept looking at the camera in the scene where Claudio and Don Pedro learn they have been duped into accusing Hero.  The Dude found it distracting, and it would serve to sort of break the fourth wall.

Thirdly, the film is not being shown in most theaters near me, which is the greatest downside of the film, and to conclude, you need to see it anyway.



Got it?  Okay, moving on.

I'm having a difficult time figuring out where to begin with the things I liked about the film--there were a lot.

Going into the movie, I was curious to see how the casting would play out (see what I did there?).  Beatrice is usually cast and acted as a brash character who can hardly wait to get her next dig in. Amy Acker plays the part differently.  If you've seen her as Fred in Angel or the doctor in Dollhouse, you'll know she excels at bringing a delicacy to boldness.  What I mean is this:  where one might expect a character to puff out her chest and have a "bring it on, dude" attitude, Amy Acker manages to show an underlying vulnerability which makes that kind of brashness more sympathetic.  Her Beatrice is deeply sympathetic--haven't we all trash-talked an ex at one point or another?

DON PEDRO:  Come, lady, you have lost the heart of Signior Benedick.

BEATRICE:  Indeed, my lord, he lent it me awhile, and I gave him use for it, a double heart for his single one.  marry, once before he won it of me with false dice.  Therefore your Grace may well say I have lost it.

(Act 2, scene 1)

And Clark Gregg as Leonato was simply incredible.  Much Ado is one of my favorite Shakespeare plays, and I've seen multiple versions of it, filmed and live.  Gregg's performance was without a doubt the best I've seen.  His anger, betrayal, and violence-tinged grief when Hero is accused marked the first time the scene almost had me in tears, and definitely the first time my sole consuming thought wasn't You should be on her side, dummy.  Gregg played the part with such aplomb that for the first time, I felt sympathy for Leonato and Hero both.

As a whole, I love the way the cast worked as a unit.  In this production, it didn't seem to be a play about Benedick and Beatrice, with some other characters giving them things to do--it was truly an ensemble cast.  Some people may consider the fact that those two weren't always front and center a downside, but it really let the rest of the cast--parts that are often just fodder for Benedick and Beatrice's antics--to shine believably.

And that's another thing.  This play has lots of slapstick, "big" comedy in it, between Benedick/Beatrice listening in where they shouldn't be and of course Dogberry and the other men of the night watch (Nathan Fillion was fantastic as expected, btvw.  Though Tom Lenk as Verges might have just managed to upstage him.  His fumbling sunglass-whipping--a la CSI Miami--had me in stitches.  And the two other watchmen perfectly nailed the "my boss is an idiot" thing.).  Most productions I've seen have turned up the physical comedy to 11.

This production, however, was treated above all with subtlety, enhanced by fact it was filmed in black and white.  From this, Hero gained a strength of character (not just an obedient foil to Beatrice, with just about as much depth) usually not seen.  Leonato, as I mentioned before, was finally a sympathetic character.  Conrade didn't melt into the background--that other bad one, you know.  Sean Maher as Don John wasn't a mustachio-twisting cardboard villain.  And the humor, then, was likewise more subtle--and no less laughter-inducing for it.

I also really liked the fact that it was set in the present day.  If you're familiar with Whedon's body of work at all, you know he likes his women strong, and he's very aware of the issues women face.  By setting this work today, lines such as, "Oh, that I were a man" take on a significance not usually present.  Yes, yes, but it's not like that now, the audience can think.  Not so in this production, where these lines highlight the extent to which things are still like that.

Look, here's the thing:

If you like Joss Whedon, you should see this film.

If you like Shakespeare, you should see this film.

If you like strong female characters, you should see this film.

If you like a great cast, you should see this film.

If you like to fangirl out over Nathan Fillion and/or Agent Phil Coulson, you should see this film.

If you like good movies, you should see this film.

Actually, I'd argue that if you breathe, you should see it.  Yeah, it's that good.  Hopefully, it's in a theater near you.  Otherwise, aren't you due for a road trip?

(True:  Interesting further reading on the "pre-history" of Beatrice and Benedick can be found here.)

Watch This! 18 to Life

I'm not normally a fan of sitcoms.  I usually find them tired and contrived.  But every once in a while, a gem comes along like 18 to Life.

It's kind of like those shows where the teenage couple has illicit sex and the girl ends up pregnant, and they face the disapproval of their whole family and the drama that ensues.  Except here, the teenage couple gets married and has to face the disapproval of their whole family and the comedy that ensues.  And I actually like this--that's a pretty big difference, too.

(This is where I would post a photo, if Blogger let me.  Dammit.)

Tom and Jessie get married based on a game of Truth or Dare, and end up living in the attic of Tom's parents' house.  Which is right next door to Jessie's parents' house.  Tom's parents are rigid and conservative.  Jessie's are hippies who don't mow their lawn.  It's honestly a shock the six of them don't just kill each other in the first episode and call it a wrap.

It's a simple enough premise, which means the clever scripts and comedic skills of the cast can really shine through.  The plot doesn't try to overshoot itself, if that makes sense.  (I mean that as a strength.)  Jessie and Tom are silly, sometimes immature (though they try), and make a cute couple.  I think getting married at 18 is incredibly stupid, but I still find myself rooting for them.  Both sets of parents are believable in a "they do crazy things that stretch your belief, but then they turn around and do something so real that it grounds them firmly in the believable regardless of how crazy they act" kind of way.  The funniest parts of the show are when the four parents are all together--their dynamic is hilarious.

Sadly, the show only got two seasons (Netflix streaming has both), but every episode I've seen so far has actually, literally made me laugh like a loon.  Which is quite a feat, considering my hard, embittered heart.  But by far, my favorite aspect of the show is the sense of sincerity infusing it all, making it not only funny, but truly charming as well.

This is a good one, guys.  I'd recommend it highly.


(True:  Day two of ignoring Prada before I leave home, and she didn't bark at all.  Woohoo!)

It's Really a Gift--For You and From You. So You Won't Even Have to Regift.

You know what I love even more than ice cream?  Watching TV and eating ice cream.  Of course, since I don't currently have a functioning television, all my watching happens online.  Between Netflix and the various networks' streaming video, I'm pretty well covered, and not in much danger of running out of things to watch.

A lot of my favorite shows are already discontinued or are already several seasons in--I generally prefer that, because then I can get obsessed and watch three consecutive seasons of a show in a week. 

But I might make an exception, and watch a currently-airing online show when Chic premieres.



Yes, that is a widget.  (Lookit ma, I managed a widget!)

Yes, that is a widget to a Kickstarter.

But I wouldn't recommend it if it weren't going to be AWESOME.  Seriously.  I know the producers, Sarah Hesch and Chris Snapp, and they are funny and clever as hell, and they make good art.  Do you really think I would recommend a show about pr0n on a blog my mother reads, otherwise?

Check it out.  Donate if it interests you.  Even if it doesn't, donate anyway--you can consider it a protest against the Kardashians.  And next year, you'll have something funny and clever as hell to watch instead of doing your laundry.

See?  Gift to yourself.


(True:  You know what else would make a great gift to youself?  A PossumFace Pinup calendar.)

Calling All Nerds

All right guys:  I'm armed with popcorn and an Internet connection at home finally.  My Netflix account is up and running, but I've only got about 40 shows/movies in my queue, which I hear is embarrassingly small.  And, like, half of those are Doctor Who specials.

Things I like:

-Anything with David Tennant (obviously)
-Torchwood
-Robin Hood (BBC series)
-Joss Whedon
-Bones
-Eureka
-Most anything fantasy/horror lite, sci-fi lite, mysteries, histories
-Long-term plot arcs
-Watching four seasons in a week

Things I don't like:

-Anything with a sad ending (Dude, life is depressing enough.)
-War movies (see above)
-The Walking Dead (I have post-apocolyptic dreams if I want to put myself in a setting where I might be eaten, thanks.)
-Mad Men  (I gave it six episodes.  I still hate everybody.)
-Straight-up cop procedurals (I.e., I like Bones, I hate NYPD anything.)

So, lay it on me.  What do I need to watch?  What do you love?


(True:  Someone in my office just told me I need to become a mouth-breather.)

Watch This: The Secret of the Kells

Let's get something straight:  You need to see this film.

The storyline follows Brendan, a young boy growing up in the Abbey of Kells, under the supervision of his uncle, Abbot Cellach.  The good Abbot is obsessed with building and fortifying a wall around the abbey that will save Kells from the Viking invaders, and he has ordered Brendan to stay within the abbey's confines. 

Along comes Brother Aidan of Iona and his cat, Pangur Ban.  Aidan has brought the illuminated text-in-progress, the Book of Iona, and apprentices Brendan, who must sneak out of the abbey to collect the materials to make the colorful inks.  In the surrounding forest, Brendan befriends Aisling and battles a metaphysical sea serpent, Crom Cruach, neither of whom should exist by 8th century Christian standards (or today's, for that matter).

The storyline, good as it is, almost pales in comparison to the richness of the animation.  It's stylistic interpretation of traditional Irish art and the frequent juxtaposition of three dimensional and two dimensional animation is simply stunning.  In case you didn't get enough out of the trailer to see what I mean:

Via

Via  (I know.  It's blurry.  Use your imagination.)

Via

If I hadn't been mesmerised by the artistry, the imagery would have gotten me for sure.  There are all kind of wonderful references to Irish mythology, from Pangur Ban and Aisling (names), Crom Cruach (the way he is depicted as the very embodiment of Irish art, with all his integral Celtic knots), and of course, the Book of Kells itself.  For an animated film to be cerebral on that level is in itself a lovely thing.

I would not recommend it for young children.  Besides a lot of the history and art and literary references going right over their heads, the Vikings are seriously scary...



Via


Go.  Watch it.  And prepare to be transfixed.

Sources:
IMDB
Wikipedia film page
Wikipedia historical Book of Kells page (Worth a read just on its own.)


(True:  The real Book of Kells is housed in Trinity College in Dublin.  I went to Dublin once, but I arrived late in the evening and left early in the morning for a bus tour, and only got to see things that were both outside and well-lit.  Which gives me an excuse to go back someday.)

The Hunger Games and Nazi Germany: Visual Metaphor in the Film and Why It Works

If you've seen the film, you probably couldn't help but notice that in District 12, technology and dress seem to be stuck in the past.  It especially noticeable in the reaping scene, along with some other striking imagery.

Compare these:



Via



Via

Take off the hats and the stupid sweaters, and you've got some decent comparisons.

Via

Via

Okay, okay, these aren't perfect examples, because I've only got my lunch hour to complete this post. But you get the idea.  It makes good sense:  the late '30s early '40s were are era of economic hardship in the US and Europe, and District 12 is struggling similarly.  But here is where it gets interesting.

Via

  Take a close look at the flag on the building.  Does it look a little familiar?  It's an eagle, looking over its shoulder, and it's surrounded by a wreath. 

Via

This is, per Wikipedia (I did say I was in a hurry), "The Parteiadler or coat of arms of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP; known in English as the National Socialist German Workers' Party or simply the Nazi Party), which features an eagle looking over its left shoulder, that is, looking to the right from the viewer's point of view."  Here again we have the eagle, and though it is carrying the wreath, there are clear parallels.  Moreover, in some versions of the Parteiadler, the eagle is looking over its other shoulder.  Added on the red field, the Panem flag is pretty damn similar.

But wait, there's more!



Via

There are a couple notable aspects to this shot.  First, of course, is the propaganda video.  Three guesses what rather infamous party was known for its prolific propaganda...  The point of the film in The Hunger Games is to show how the government brought the country of Panem out of a terrible situation.  After World War I, Germany was in dire financial straits.  Hitler had a lot to do with pulling that country out if its very serious depression.  Time named him Man of the Year for 1938.

Second, look at the gathering of people, how they are stand in neat blocks of humanity, facing a stage bare of decoration but for the country's flag...

Via

It's a lot smaller scale, obviously.  But look at enough photos of Nazi gatherings, and you notice a trend.  (And I don't just mean military events.)  And look, a quote! 

"If there has to be a choice between injustice and disorder, said Goethe, the German prefers injustice." - Barbara Tuchman

(She was an author and historian, so I'm going to assume she knew what she was talking about.

So, let's see if I can't come up with a point to all of this, eh?  Something other than "At this point, I've done so many searches for various aspects of Nazi Germany that I'm probably on about twelve government watchlists."

Here you have two societies in which the totalitarian government has tight control over the populace and depends on order and propaganda to be able to perpetuate the atocities they are committing on their denizens.  In District 12, where this control is very tightly held, the visual nods to Nazi Germany are very strong.  In the woods outside the district, there is a sense of taking a deep breath, of lightness (literally--the colors are way more saturated), of freedom, albeit a freedom under constant threat (the used-to-be-electric fence, the airship from which Gale and Katniss hide).  The Capitol has a hard (lots of concrete and glass) edge under the glamor, but the visual comparisons to Nazi Germany are fewer and farther between. 

That worked for me (but not others), because it seemed to show that the government was willfully holding the outlying districts in this state of depression and anachronism, while life in the Capitol itself is not a utopia, either (which is a decent visual setup for what happens later, especially in the third installation of the series). 

What did you think?  Did the film's visual design depend too much on the past, considering it's ostensibly set sometime in the future?  Was the Nazi symbolism too heavy-handed, or an appropriate nod to the totalitarian government that is first and foremost in our cultural awareness?


(True:  I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  I'm a big dweeb.  Ten dollar words are sexy.)

Hops in the Right Direction: Money Don't Grow on Trees (Plus a Happy Ending)

And that's a problem in a lot of ways.  Cost is a big reason why people are hesitant to adopt a dog who may require additional health care.  The cost of care is even scarier when your pet needs the surgery now.

There are, of course, lots of options.  Pet insurance, credit cards designated specifically for vet bills (ask your vet), savings accounts--whatever suits you.  But sometimes, you need a hand.

For example, a dog, Bubba, in one of the meetups I attend (okay, I've never actually been to one yet, since they always seem to be when I'm working one of my three jobs), recently had to have his left back leg amputated because of a rare lymphatic disorder, poor guy.  The meetup is hosting a rummage sale to help defray the cost of that, and to show support for Bubba and his mom.

If you are in the Chicago area this weekend, here is the info:

When:  Saturday, March 31, 10 a.m.-2 p.m.
Where:  Greenleaf Art Center, located at 1806 W. Greenleaf Avenue, Chicago, IL 60645.

I won't be in Chicago this weekend (Dear Florida:  I promise I will try not to burn you down.), so I've got two options for helping:  mailing a check to the person running this show (homegrown affair, so it'd go to an apartment address), or call her with my credit card information.  These are people's homes and personal lines and real names I'm dealing with here, so I'm not going to post that info here for all the Internet to see, but if you are interested in donating, leave me a note in the comments or email me at danathebiped@gmx.com and I'd be happy to set you up with contact info.  I will match donations from readers dollar for dollar (up to a completely arbitrary point; I have three jobs for a reason, and plane tickets are expensive).

Here is another arbitrary thing: a cool video! It will probably make you cry, in a good way. (Shout out to my friend Sam, who found the video and who also fosters pit bull terriers. He's good people.)



Yay, happily ever afters!

All right, all right, wipe your tears.  Go make someone hug you--I'll wait.

Better now?

Good, because I have to tell you that I'm probably not going to be posting for a few days, while I fry in the sun, drink rummy drinks, and enjoy the festivities of a good friend's wedding.  See you on the flip side!

I Have a Problem...

...With Shakespeare.  As in, I love him too, too much*.  I've seen Hamlet live on at least four separate occasions.  One of them was even good, with a Hamlet who wasn't a total sissy and an Ophelia who didn't make me want to give her a swift kick in the butt for being so pathetic.

I've read Filthy Shakespeare.  For fun.

I think Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Undead is a legitimately awesome film.

I know what "wherefore" means.

Basically, I am a huge Shakespeare geek.

Last night, I felt the call of the verilys and forsooths, and spent the entire evening watching two of my favorite plays on dvd.  The first, of course, is the 1999 version of A Midsummer Night's Dream--the one with well, pretty much everyone famous who ever lived excpect maybe George Clooney, David Beckham, and Jesus.  Lordy, I love this film.  I'm not generally a big fan of Calista Flockhart, but her portrayal of Helena is spot-on.  Her Helena is desperate and yes, more than slightly pathetic, but her sheer determination to do whatever it takes to be with Demetrius saves her from being an unsympathetic character.  And the claws she shows during her argument with Hermia--meow!  And really, has there ever been a more beautiful Hermia than Anna Friel?  Bottom is more than just an ass in this adaptation, which I love.  And Stanley Tucci as Robin Goodfellow...  When I first saw this film as a teenager, I totally fell in love with Tucci's Puck.  (Which sounds a little dirty when I put it that way.  I was in eighth grade!)

Love, love, love it.

But then, a couple of months ago, my cousin introduced me to this: 

As a Shakespeare nerd and Doctor Who afficianado, David Tennant and Catherine Tate in Much Ado About Nothing is pretty much my version of a wet dream.  The fact that this filmed version of a live performance is not available on Netflix--as in, I actually had to pay to see it--goes to show how eager I was to hear about it.  It was a little pricey with the pounds-to-dollars conversion, but was it ever worth it!  I've seen it several times now and still giggle like a caffeinated four-year-old on crack every time I see it.

It's set in the '80s, and it absolutely works.  There's a Rubick's Cube, a huge boombox, and the masked ball.  Good god.  We've got characters dressed as Mario, Darth Vader, David Bowie, Miss Piggy, and Princess Di.  As a theater minor (i.e., I'm a theater nerd who just wanted to know what differentiates between a good perfomance and a great one), I feel reasonably qualified to tell you that the costumes and lighting are very, very good--wait till you see Hero's wedding dress.  I got root beer up my nose first time I saw it.  The set is minimalist but very clever, with most of the action taking place on a large round dais, split  in unequal halves by a series of pillars, that rotates between scenes to create the illusion of different spaces.

And there's a guy in a g-string.

I don't know how I feel about that, really.

Anyway, I don't want to give too much away, but I will tell you this:  the absolute funniest part of the entire perfomance is Benedick's line...

...wait for it...

..."A book."

Well, you might have to just trust me on that.

*Clarification:  I love Shakespeare's comedies--yes, even The Merchant of Venice--and a good number of the sonnets.  The histories are boring, and the tragedies only need to be read/seen once and that's good enough for me.  Except Hamlet, which I had to keep going to see until I saw a version that didn't make me want to brain the title character.  Oooh, and MacBeth.  That's good no matter how many times I see it.  But none of the Richards or the Henrys.


(True:  This is a really interesting case study on the relevance of teaching the very uncomfortable Merchant of Venice in high school.  I promise.)

Karma knows very well that "The course of true love never did run smooth," but she's looking forward to her happy ending.

Grimm

Last night, I went to a special screening of Grimm, a new show on NBC premiering this Friday.  Not because I'm particularly special, but because if it's free, I'll sign up to win.

With a friend as a plus one, I rode the train downtown and found my way to a very swank movie theatre (yeah, it was definitely the kind that would spell it that way) after almost ending up in Target instead.

Okay, maybe I am special.

Anyway, we collected our free tickets, overpaid for popcorn, and took our seats.  We did not win any t-shirts or DVDs, which was a bit of a bummer, but one of the people who did pumped her fist and cried, "Today, I feel like a winner," so I wasn't too put out.

Most of the people there were from the press.  I'm pretty sure they gave out a few tickets to us "commoners" so they could gauge our reaction to the show.

And here's what I thought of the show:

It has potential.  The main character, whose name I can't remember, is too pretty for my liking.  I'm sorry, but a cop just shouldn't look that... shiny.  And they definitely don't make enough money to buy jeans that fit like that.  (Not that I particularly minded that.)  Of course, it was a premiere episode, which I think often fall flat even for programs that turn out to be fantastic, just because they have to fit so much back story in there.

Grimm is by the same writers who did Buffy and Angel, which definitely intrigued me.  I love me some Joss, but it would be nice to see that kind of cleverness without knowing that the end is going to make me feel terrible every time I think about it for years to come.  And I could see the similarities between Grimm and those shows.  The dialogue is quick and quirky, and the humor is the tongue-in-cheek variety.  If you like puns, you'll like it.  If you don't like puns, what's wrong with you?

And the wolf man?  (Another character whose name has slipped me.)  He's fantastic.  It's worth watching just because of him.  The girlfriend is lackluster and forgettable.  In fact (SPOILER ALERT), I think the pretty boy cop might have dumped her at the end.  But maybe that was just wishful thinking.

In any case, I will definitely be catching the next episode.  The dialogue and main characters alone are worth it, but when you add the fun-poking, it seems like something that'll be awesome, if it hasn't quite reached that yet.

At worst, you'll have wasted an hour, and let's face it, you've wasted hours in way stupider ways.