DOWNTON ABBEY Season 3: When A Writer’s Hand Is Forced

HUGE SPOILER ALERT! DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN’T WATCHED SEASON 3 YET!

I won’t go too in-depth about the third season of DOWNTON ABBEY as I actually found most of it to be very entertaining and satisfying. But this third season introduced a few moments that could be seen as the ever-feared missteps a series can take when it overstays its welcome or when popularity seeps in as a guiding force in how the story unfolds.

DOWNTON has quickly become a household name since I first watched what seemed to be just another BBC mini-series that the vast majority of Americans had not only never heard of, but were quite likely NEVER to hear of, like so many fantastic British shows to come before it and live in relative obscurity here in the States. But DOWNTON ABBEY hit a nerve and its popularity has since soared on this side of the pond. And while I’m happy for the show’s success, that kind of popularity always fills me with a little dread as well. I won’t lie. Sometimes I like good shows to remain a bit of a well-kept secret. Selfish, I know. But then I can also continue complaining about how the best shows never find an audience and how stupid American viewers are over all. But then a show like DOWNTON gains a measure of real success and either A) I have to stop complaining about the dullness of Americans or B) the show has to lower its standards to keep its new audience entertained.

When I read that Shirley MacLaine was gonna be on the show, I thought my fears had been realized. Now don’t misunderstand, I love Shirley MacLaine. But her presence suggested the possibility of this fine BBC drama placating its newfound American audience with a more “familiar” face (Elizabeth McGovern, though American, has not been a familiar face on these shores for a number of years, while Ms. MacLaine has managed to embed herself in our continued social consciousness). Thankfully and allaying my fears, MacLaine’s role on DOWNTON was short and sweet. She didn’t try and eat the scenery or overwhelm with her presence. No, in fact, she fit right in and was most welcome both in her arrival and departure. I thought it was all just right and I couldn’t have been more pleased.

Then there was the big mid-season surprise. The sudden death of Sybil. I admired this choice. Though she was my favorite of the sisters (and the one I had the biggest mini-series crush on), I always like when a main character is killed off. It often forces a show and its viewers to deal with a particular set of experiences that they have not had to deal with before. That gives it resonance. Something to talk about, something to remember, both emotionally and structurally. But there was a lazy bone to be found in the storyline surrounding Sybil’s death. The much-decorated doctor who insists that Sybil’s symptoms are nothing more than those naturally found in pregnancy is such a pompous, unlikeable fool of a man that I would guess 99% of the audience knew that our dear country doctor was indeed correct and that Sybil’s life was in danger. Why choose to paint these two in such black and white terms? Why not offer a bit more credibility to the doctor responsible for Sybil’s death? Why not allow us, the audience, to share in the difficulty of the life and death decisions being made? Perhaps Mr. Fellowes believed he was doing just that. Or, perhaps, he didn’t want to. I don’t have the answer. All I know is that I was thrilled Sybil died (from a story perspective, that is), but disappointed that the events surrounding it hadn’t been painted in grayer strokes so that her death may have been even more of a surprise and may have engaged me by allowing me to partake in some measure of responsibility. As it stands, the writing allowed me to get ahead of the characters in what was to unfold. But all in all, this was a mildly disappointing and fleeting moment surrounded by so many wonderful moments that I was able to push it aside with relative ease and not have it negatively impact my feelings about this extraordinarily engaging show.

Julian Fellowes

Then the Season 3 finale arrived. Now let me just start by saying that I’m okay with Matthew’s death. Conceptually. Remember, I like when main characters die. Particularly beloved ones. But this particular death felt incredibly inorganic to me. And it’s not simply because actor Dan Stevens chose to leave the show and forced scribe and creator Julian Fellowes into a story corner. Certainly that plays a role (and I think will actually breed some ill-will toward Mr. Stevens though, for myself, I hope his personal choice leads him to a successful career), but it’s in the handling of Matthew’s death that I take issue with here.

Viewers across the globe have complained that there was simply too much similarity between Matthew’s death and Sybil’s. Both died following the birth of their child. Both were in loving relationships that were damn near perfect for those characters, making the loss that much greater. It worked wonderfully for Sybil’s death. But for Matthew’s… I could feel the writer struggling. For me, giving Matthew and Mary their final moment together to once again profess their love for one another and for Matthew to bask in the glow of his newborn son before driving off to his inevitable demise was just too much for me. It felt manufactured. Insincere.

Now I have a friend who believes I’m in the minority in feeling dissatisfaction with allowing Matthew’s relationship to end with such happy/tragic perfection. He feels that most people wanted to see/needed to see some measure of resolution before such a tragic event. But in reading comments online and talking with other friends, I’m thinking that my sense of dissatisfaction might be the overriding sensation being felt in living rooms across the globe. Death is a dirty business and Matthew wasn’t just another character in DOWNTON ABBEY. He was our guide through the world of DOWNTON ABBEY. The upstairs of Downton, that is, just as Bates is our guide downstairs.

Julian Fellowes had set up the near perfect end for himself, then chose not to take it: Matthew wants to leave with Mary. She tells him “No, I’ll be fine” and returns home without him. For me, that decision ending with them never seeing one another again and Matthew never seeing his son would have had the gravitas and tragedy earned by Matthew’s character. As it stands, I feel as if I were gently lead into Matthew’s death, as if Mr. Fellowes were afraid of the forced-decision to prematurely rid the show of Matthew and therefore second-guessed the audience’s reaction. Matthew’s endless profession of love for Mary seemed overwrought and inorganic; it was hinting too strongly at something else, setting up the scenes to come with an uncharacteristically heavy hand. Perhaps Mr. Fellowes was hyper-aware that this episode was going to air on Christmas Day and felt some measure of guilt in having to kill off Matthew (and possibly spoil Christmas a la Scrooge or the Grinch) and so chose to balance this fated tragedy with an extra helping of gaiety and joy.

For me, Matthew’s death should have been devastating, not just surprising. Unfortunately, I felt less devastation and more confusion. For a moment, it felt like I was watching a different show. Try as I might to feel better about it, I just couldn’t. Some other friends commented that they too had felt it a bit awkward and inorganic, but felt better about it once they’d learned that Mr. Fellowes had been forced into killing off Mathhew’s character. For me, sadly, that realization only highlighted just how inorganic Matthew’s death actually was.

There may have been no way to make Matthew’s death intrinsic to Season 3 as it clearly wasn’t Fellowes’ wish to end that character’s journey here. He had much more in store for Matthew. And perhaps that is why Fellowes exhibited what I consider an uncharacteristically unsteady hand in fashioning Matthew’s demise.

One thing is certain: writing is difficult. Incredibly so, as anyone who has attempted to do so knows. And Mr. Fellowes has certainly more than earned his right to stumble slightly, though he may not personally see it as such. But for me, Matthew’s death could have been a strong and defining moment in the DOWNTON ABBEY universe. Instead, for me, its a slight blemish on an otherwise incredibly engaging show.

The Oscar Coffin

I’ll try and keep this short as I’ve gone on about this almost every year since I started this blog (and so many years before that in old-fashioned verbal exchanges).

This year’s Oscars was the nail in the coffin for me. I’ve been swearing to stop watching them for ages (I’ve never missed a one since I was a wee tyke). But each year the ceremony depresses me more and more. Seth MacFarlane and company was the final straw. And I actually like THE FAMILY GUY. I can do grossly inappropriate humor. In the proper context. The Oscars is not that context. MacFarlane brought a smug artificiality to the proceedings that, in an odd way, actually managed to highlight so much of what I do not like about the Oscars. There is a gross insincerity about the whole affair. It reeks of desperation, of panic, always on the edge of total collapse, like a star imploding in on itself. You can feel each and every producer vigorously second-guessing what the audience wants. Now granted, I may not be the typical Oscar audience despite my life-long commitment to them. I actually want it to be a celebration of cinema. I actually want it to be about the human beings, the creative individuals responsible for breathing life into these works. But that is not what the Oscars is and, each year, it is rarely more than a painful reminder for me of that heartbreaking reality.

Beyond MacFarlane’s nastiness (which also represents much of Hollywood for me) and that conceited grin I wanted to punch (did anybody else want to knock those teeth right out of his mouth?!), the Oscars simply do not represent what film and cinema is to me. In fact, it represents more of what I don’t like about contemporary Hollywood and exacerbates those elements that I feel keep film from being taken seriously as anything more than distracting entertainment. I’m sorry, when bloated openings and pointless dance numbers (for films not even from this year), or montages my nephew could have done better in iMovie (007) take the place of 30 more seconds so that a real human being can have his or her moment to say thank you… You know something’s wrong. It’s what Hollywood has become: character is not important, human beings, honest emotions, depth, insight, real experiences… None of these things matter. But big, pompous spectacles with flashing lights and loud sounds… Now THAT’S Hollywood. And for me, watching that train wreck each year is an incredibly painful experience.

In this new technological age, I can go to Youtube for future broadcasts and see the acceptance speeches that interest me (the parts that don’t get cut off by a self-mocking JAWS theme, as if that somehow made it humorous and not just plain insulting). I can watch Shirley Bassey and Adele, I can watch the In-Memorium and Barbra Streisand. I can see Daniel-Day Lewis’ and Ben Affleck’s humble speeches and the lessons they contains for those of us struggling to realize our dreams here in this very odd town. Yes, there are reminders at the Oscars of the good things –what isn’t rotten in the state of Hollywood– and those brief moments when daring and artistic films are recognized. I’ll watch those in chosen clips and consciously eliminate all the nastiness that surrounds it. I don’t need to invite any more negativity or insulting belittling of my favorite art form into my own home.

So next year I’ll do something nice for myself on that night. Like go see a really good film in a really nice movie theater.

Even if I’m the only one there.

 

 

THE WALKING DEAD Season 2.5: When Characters No Longer Matter

Warning! Spoiler Alert!

It seems I am NOT your average viewer. I readily confess to being baffled by the reactions I get from others regarding the TV series THE WALKING DEAD. I’ve blogged about this show before (THE WALKING DEAD: Dead On Arrival; THE WALKING DEAD Season 2.0: Rising From The Ashes) and I feel the need to keep my thoughts updated as the series progresses. To summarize my feelings, I thought the first season suffered from lazy writing. Poor dialogue, a lack of inner logic, and lazy solutions and outcomes that seemed to serve the writers’ needs more than the characters’. Add to that, generic zombies that came across more like extras in makeup than people we once knew and engaged with in our day-to-day lives. All that said, writing is difficult and challenging and how the first season turned out may not be a reflection of the talent of the writers involved. Many more factors enter in to what finds its way to the screen.

Regardless, the result was that I initially had no plans to continue watching the show. Until I heard that an all-new team of writers had been brought on for Season 2. For me, the first half of the second season elevated itself far above the first season. Finally, characters were being developed over time and acting within the limits of what had been set up. I didn’t feel the writers rushing to the next zombie attack, but letting it happen organically while understanding that nothing mattered or had consequences if the characters themselves were not believable and offering some measure of dimensionality. Though the writing never managed to become great –and certainly not as good as the show had the potential to offer– it was, to my mind, leagues ahead of where it had been, even if it still showed signs of laziness from time to time (the zombie in the pharmacy). I finally felt myself being pulled in, sorry to see each episode end while excited to catch the next.

Sadly, as the second half of the second season aired and came to a close, I personally felt the show and its characters dropped back into the pit of unmotivated actions and behaviors, events of convenience (more for the writers again than the characters). In essence, I stopped believing in this world. I stopped caring. What had begun to excite me, now had me rolling my eyes and shaking my head. Again.

But it seems I might have been alone.

The few conversations I’ve had with others have shown me just how outside the mainstream I might be. It seems those I talk to felt the first half of the second season was boring; not enough zombie action and too much talking about feelings. Which I interpret as “I don’t care about character development, I just want to see some really cool shit.” I had a conversation last night with a nice gentleman who agreed that a lot of what was happening wasn’t really motivated or particularly well-written, but he was thrilled to see “something finally happening.” But what I saw were things happening that betrayed the characters, the world of the story, and any audience member with a desire for inner logic and organic character development. What the show returned to for me was a world in which characters show up in places they would never go and at times they could never realistically manage. Characters who would say things I don’t believe they’d say and come to conclusions that any believable person simply would not come to (without a writer breathing down their necks): Dale wandering alone in a field at night for no good reason and then having a zombie suddenly “appear” inches behind him out in the open and unnoticed. Carl wandering around stealing guns and poking at zombies deep in the woods. Carl showing up in an open field at night just after his father has killed Shane. Talk about place and timing! Especially since Shane went to all that trouble to set up an elaborate scheme to lure Rick through the woods and into this field (that is oddly right outside the house they started at!), only to have Carl find them there. And why would Shane want to kill Rick out in the open instead of in the woods? And why would Carl not tell his father that Shane has risen and is coming up behind him? Instead, he chooses to take the risk that he might accidentally shoot his father? Or that he might miss them both and his father will be eaten by Shane and become a zombie himself?

And then there’s the attack on the house at the end. Silly. Zombies reaching out and grabbing people from off frame as if the edge of the frame were also the edge of the characters’ sight lines. I’m sorry, running from a crowd of zombies, you know if you’re running alongside one. Again, it’s more act of convenience than anything else. Andrea falling down and the others assuming that the zombies “got her” instead of opening the door to find out and help her. Don’t buy it. And everyone turning on Rick at the end, wanting to go their separate ways. And Rick never fully explaining that Shane created this elaborate plan that included killing a man just so he could lure Rick out to the woods to murder him and take position again as Rick’s wife’s lover and the father to their boy (and unborn child). He never mentions that Shane held him at gunpoint. Kind of an important fact to leave out, especially when all your friends are judging you harshly for your actions. And despite any guilt Rick has (and some of that guilt is just), there’s not one character there I believe would blame Rick or question Shane’s intent. Not for a second. And I certainly don’t believe they would all turn on Rick. Particularly not his wife Lori who is the one who warned Rick about Shane, that he was dangerous and planning something and that Rick needed to take action. Add to all that Rick’s sudden decision to declare himself the group’s dictatorial leader… No, it’s all a matter of convenience; I can feel the writers’ wheels spinning in desperation. Very little of it feels organic or keeps within the logic of the series. But the comment I keep hearing is “at least something’s happening.” I guess as long as you have zombies attacking, it doesn’t matter if the writing’s awful or lazy. It doesn’t matter if the characters are devoid of dimension or behave in unbelievable ways.

It all falls under what I now call The RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES syndrome; when some of the laziest, most logic-defying, downright god-awful writing is lauded as intelligent and engaging. I suppose it’s my personal Twilight Zone.

The same gentleman I had been talking to also complained that the storyline surrounding Carol’s missing daughter, Sophia, was “dragged out” over six episodes when it should have been wrapped in two. Am I the only one who understands that this was the backbone of season two? That what happened here would forever effect these characters and how they view not only this new world, but themselves and one another? This was the human element that the show was finally dealing with. Hope versus hopelessness. Humanity versus inhumanity. Compassion versus savagery. THESE are the issues that will allow a show like THE WALKING DEAD to be more than a series of zombie attacks. This is the event that either separated people or brought them together. Without this storyline, Darrel would never have had the opportunity to grow beyond simply being “the hick.” No, that little girl became a symbol. And a complex one at that. And the power of the final reveal of Sophia’s untimely death and the manner in which it took place and what it meant for each character, would not have had near the impact or significance had it wrapped in two episodes. No, it seems people would rather have “stuff happening,” than an actual story about human beings struggling both internally and externally in a horrible, nightmarish setting.

Sigh…

Regardless of whether or not I stand alone in this, the beginning of the second season of THE WALKING DEAD had me on the edge of my seat. The show was finally giving me a reason to care. They were finally addressing some of the deeper issues, some of the thematic and moral and social issues that this new world would offer; emotional survival IN ADDITION to physical survival. But now, as with the first season, I simply don’t give a shit. Nor do I trust the makers of this show to find a way to offer quality over quantity. Now the show looks like it’s about to dive head-first into its graphic novel roots which will either make it a really fun, cool show, or simply even more ridiculous. Given what I’ve seen so far, I’m expecting the latter. And I can’t say that I’ll actually be sticking around to find out. Maybe if I hear people complaining about it, that “nothing’s happening,”  I’ll tune in because, as the first two seasons have shown me, what I like and dislike about this show is out of sync with those I engage with about it. But I’ll be sticking to my guns on this one. I’m a demanding audience member and have no intention of lowering my standards to find satisfaction within a show that cannot live up to its potential. I don’t know if that makes me too much of a geek or not enough of one.

What I do know, however, is that the spine of THE WALKING DEAD is slowly being severed from its brain and, if someone doesn’t step in and stop it soon, there will be nothing left but an inanimate corpse, not dangerous or interesting, just simply dead. And unfortunate.

At least so far as this viewer is concerned.

THE WALKING DEAD Season 2.0: Rising From The Ashes

I love zombie flicks. They scare the bejeezus outta me. Earlier this year, I wrote about Season One of the Frank Darabont developed AMC show THE WALKING DEAD in a post I called THE WALKING DEAD: DEAD ON ARRIVAL. Despite my love of zombies, I found the show to be obvious and rather poorly written. The zombies weren’t scary to me; they felt like extras in makeup. The characters and their story lines felt more suited to BAYWATCH or MANIMAL than to a contemporary zombie drama. Sure, there were moments, but the over all effect was to me, despite its popularity, run of the mill. It seemed like a great idea that barely made good.

For reasons that have been speculated about across the web (I don’t know which tale to believe), it was announced that the Season One writing team would not return for Season Two.

This gave me hope.

Frank Darabont

After the dreadful Season One finale, I feared the Second Season would be more of the same. I thought my fears had been realized as I watched the Season Two premiere which began with one of the worst-written monologues I’ve heard in a while. My heart sank. But then something happened. It started to get better. And then… it started to get good. REALLY good. Now don’t misunderstand me, THE WALKING DEAD is not THE WIRE or THE SOPRANOS or DEADWOOD. The writing is simply NOT of that caliber. But I have now found myself engaged where before I hadn’t been. And I’m now left wanting more at the end of each episode. Which is a good thing. I find myself excited for the next. And while words like “brilliant” and “masterful” will never find themselves (appropriately) applied to this series, “damn entertaining” and “engrossing” are terms I’m more than comfortable using. And sure, I still have a couple of issues from Season One that weren’t completely addressed in Season Two, but with the boosted quality of writing and acting the show is now exhibiting, I find myself far more forgiving of what I may see as “imperfections.”

Interestingly, somewhere during the early days of shooting the Second Season, show runner Frank Darabont was let go. It’s not unheard of for the creator of a show to be let go, but one of Darabont’s stature? This sent out shock waves.

Now I can’t tell you if the first half of the Second Season is more a reflection of Darabont or new show runner Glen Mazzara (who had been Darabont’s no. 2), but I can tell you it’s night and day compared to Season One. Anyone interested in the future of this series is holding his/her breath for the second half of Season Two to see if the show will continue on as the very intense, well-written show it has been for the past 7 episodes, or fall flat on its own rotted face. I will say this, the mid-season finale was, to put it bluntly, fucking amazing. Is it possible that the show may actually benefit from Darabont’s departure, as has been suggested by some?

Glen Mazzara

Many reports I’ve read seem to hold AMC responsible for mismanaging this show and the behind-the-scenes circus that has developed. I’m not an insider, so I don’t know where the blame lies. All I know is I’m hoping like hell the series continues with this level of quality and doesn’t sink back down to the depths of ridiculousness it found itself mired in for much of the first season. And I’m keeping my fingers crossed that AMC doesn’t find a way to consume its own show until there’s nothing left worth my attention. And let’s hope Glen Mazzara’s influence will continue to be a plus. I’m certainly rooting for him. And for the show.

Happy Birthday, Pigpen!!!!

Today I’ll be celebrating Ron McKernan’s Birthday with yet another show from his final tour. The new Europe ’72: The Complete Recordings box is chock full of many of Pigpen’s last performances (he returned to the States for one more show at the Hollywood Bowl and then succumbed to the illness that eventually took his life. Yes, another member of the 27 club). Such a talent. And despite his failing health, his performances throughout the Europe tour were energetic and full of life.

We miss you, Pig!

Too Important To Cinema For The Oscars?

It seems the holy trinity awarded at the 2010 Governor’s Awards Ceremony for their lifetime achievements were only allowed to walk on stage at this year’s Oscars. But there was no time for a chat. Director/Producer Francis Ford Coppola, Actor Eli Wallach and Filmmaker/Historian Kevin Brownlow were all honored by the Academy at a Pre-Oscar ceremony held late last year. Ground-breaking director Jean-Luc Godard was also honored, though he declined to appear.

Now do you remember a time, just a few years ago, when Lifetime Achievement Awards, Honorary Oscars and the Irving Thalberg Award were actually handed out during the Oscar Ceremony? When the great men and women who helped create the industry we currently enjoy were important enough to actually be awarded not only a statuette, but some well-earned air time? Well, stop mourning the days of yor. It seems the Academy must not think audiences care enough to waste time on their precious show with such frivolities. Not when Anne Hathaway has a song to sing, or James Franco a dress to wear. Not on a night when Hollywood’s greatest gather together for an evening of awkwardness and staged exchanges. You’d think after 83 years, someone would have figured out how to make this awards show work. But even as surface-level entertainment, it almost always falls flat. My suggestion? Just be more sincere. Don’t try so hard. Just honor those nominated. Stop trying to create a heartfelt moment in what should naturally be a heartfelt moment. Stop tap-dancing out of fear the audience is growing bored. We can sniff desperation a mile away. Trust that the reason this show exists and the people it honors are enough.

But having these three gentlemen walk out on stage and simply stand there, appearing small and silenced by the vast stage set-up… Well, that took the cake for me. Sure, they showed some clips of the “other” ceremony, but it reeked of the same ridiculousness that American news shows exhibit when they do their “News From Around The World in 60 Seconds.” Yeah, that should cover most of the important stuff. Thanks.

Luckily, for those (apparently) few of us who actually give half a shit, the Academy’s web site has put up the speeches from the Governor’s Awards Ceremony. Might have been worth making an announcement during the show to actually gauge public interest. And while a good many people know who Francis Coppola is, far fewer are familiar with Eli Wallach and even fewer have ever heard the name Kevin Brownlow uttered. Which is sad as these men are pioneers and their contributions to film immeasurable. At least the Academy recognized this, even if those in charge of the Oscars did not. The very moments I used to wait with baited breath to see at the Academy Awards, are now not held at the Academy Awards. A sign of the times? Perhaps. Or maybe it’s just another example of Hollywood’s misplaced importance and definition of “entertainment.”

For those sporadic few interested in seeing the speeches given at the 2010 Governor’s Awards Ceremony, please visit the Academy’s web site. Here’s where you’ll see an Awards Ceremony far more entertaining, far more moving, and far more sincere than last night’s Oscars.

http://www.oscars.org/video/watch/ga_2010_23_coppola.html

America: Insanity Or Performance Art?

Egypt. Wisconsin. Union rights. The Anti-Christ.

It seems Glenn Beck and Fox News are on the loose again. This time they’ve brought in a self-proclaimed prophet as “expert” on comparing Obama to the Anti-Christ and why the goings-on in Wisconsin are about the end of days and turning America into an Islamic state and not about union rights after all. And while we’ve all gotten used to this kind of rhetoric being tossed about on a daily basis and shaking our collective heads at the absurdity of it all –so much so that we barely notice it anymore– there are more than a few people out there taking all this nonsense very seriously. After all, Fox News brought in an “expert!”

And while 35% of those polled in New Jersey either believe or are willing to consider the possibility that Obama is the Anti-Christ, Rachel Maddow, as always, has a rather enlightened take on the whole affair.

THE WALKING DEAD: Dead On Arrival

Let me start out by saying that I am fully aware of the extreme popularity of AMC’s new show THE WALKING DEAD. However, popular does not make it good. I will also say right up front here that I consider myself a huge zombie film fan. How did that happen? Well, it was probably seeing NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD in a theater by myself when I was only 9. It was on a double bill with THE LEGEND OF BOGGY CREEK. I was traumatized and thrilled, all at the same time. Ever since, zombies, when done well, have scared the living crap out of me. And no one does zombies better than NIGHT director George Romero. But that doesn’t mean they can’t be done well by another. That’s why I had such high hopes for the Frank Darabont/Gale Anne Hurd-produced series THE WALKING DEAD.

About five years ago, a producer I was working with (not a particularly honorable fellow, but a lover of horror films) handed me the first two graphic novels in THE WALKING DEAD series. He knew I loved zombie films and he thought these graphic novels would make a great series. I read them and felt, ultimately, that the characters were too thin and the plot too, well, tired and simple to be of much interest to me. I found the idea of a zombie series exciting, but if we were going to do something like that, I couldn’t see starting out with such lightweight material. Not that it wasn’t entertaining on a certain level, it was, but it was never truly engaging. And it certainly wasn’t thought-provoking. And contrary to studio belief, a story needs to be both if it is to be successful on more than just a monetary level. And while I do love me some money, it is almost never my main motivator.

So I passed on pursuing that particular avenue. When I heard it was finally being made into a series and that Darabont was attached, I had seriously hoped that he would bring something special to it; elevate it beyond its graphic novel roots. But four episodes in, I have to say, while mildly entertained, I’m more disappointed than anything else. There was a time when this might have been hailed as “ground-breaking” TV, maybe even daring. But the bar has been raised so high by cable shows like THE WIRE and DEADWOOOD, THE SOPRANOS and AMC’s own MAD MEN that, by comparison, THE WALKING DEAD is almost rubbish.

“But it’s just a zombie show! It’s not supposed to be MAD MEN!”  Wrong attitude. Was THE WIRE just another cop procedural? Was DEADWOOD just another western? THE SOPRANOS just another mob flick? No. So THE WALKING DEAD had a chance to be more than just another zombie film (or series, as the case may be). But it’s not. The writing is average, nothing memorable or revealing, nothing elevated beyond the depths of a CSI or COLD CASE episode. Not that those are terrible, mind you, they’re certainly entertaining, but they don’t strive to be anything more. Even George Romero, over 40 years ago, recognized that his subject matter was ripe material for social commentary. And just as importantly, he knew how to make his zombies scary, and that’s another area where THE WALKING DEAD fails miserably.

One of the things that always made Romero’s zombies so vastly unsettling and downright terrifying, was that we recognized them. If not on an individual basis, then as types. They were our neighbors, our teachers, our friends, our children, ourselves. Any random image of a zombie in a Romero film would strike a chord, reach inside and mess with some part of our collective psyches. The zombies in THE WALKING DEAD are defined by “this one has a hanging jaw, this one isn’t wearing a shirt, this one is crawling, this one is limping.” They are “effects” not characters; mere background, not players. The filmmakers here have failed to allow the zombies to be us. Even when our hero takes a moment to identify and honor the body of a walking dead member of society whose guts he’s about to smear all over himself, it’s an intellectual exercise, not an emotional or visceral one. We never see the face of this once-person. He represents nothing to us, the viewer. There’s only one moment so far in the entire series when a zombie is actually disturbing and scary, and that’s in the first episode when one character must face the fact that his wife, now turned zombie, is wandering around outside the house with some vague memory, some basic instinct, to return to the house where she had once stayed. But in THE WALKING DEAD, she’s one zombie in a thousand. The rest are extras in makeup, nothing more.

Ironically, while it’s the zombies that should be societal archetypes in THE WALKING DEAD, it’s our main characters that are written as such instead. The Hick. The Cop. The Wife. The Best Friend. The Old Man. The Racist. The Smart Kid. The Son. The Crazy Guy. Tired melodramatic scenarios borrowed from too many other series are used here with little originality or invention. Secondary characters given special attention during an episode’s opening teaser, will most certainly meet a gruesome demise by that same episode’s close. The plots are predictable, used. They lack inspiration. The action is borrowed and rehashed from other zombie genre entries, with the characters never for a moment attaining three dimensions. Even the teaser from the very first episode was lacking in surprise or meaning; it was an unnecessary moment that seemed to have more to do with trying to “shock” the audience instead of engage it. It was poorly executed, devoid of character, sorely out of place in the chronology of the storytelling and, sadly, set the tone for the rest of the episodes to come. It felt as if the filmmakers didn’t trust their own audience right out of the gate.

It’s unfortunate. I had sworn off watching new shows before they were complete and available on Blu-ray. I’m not a fan of the wait between episodes or, even worse, between seasons, a gap that has grown so wide I find it takes me half a season just to remember the previous! But THE WALKING DEAD lured me out of my self-induced exile from currently-running series. It will also, unfortunately, send me back.

I will watch the remaining episodes of the first season out of some vague hope that it might get better, and out of some misguided allegiance to the genre. I suppose that makes me a zombie of sorts myself. But now that the show has been picked up for a second season, it’s gonna take a lot more than good word of mouth to lure me back in. I’m looking, hoping, to find something to hang on to here. But so far, I’m just coming up empty.

The Old West in Hi-Def: DEADWOOD comes to Blu-ray.

Another stunning HBO series finds its way to Blu-ray. DEADWOOD, loved or hated by many, is for me one of the best-written and most engaging shows ever to find its way onto our advancing boob tube. Right up there with THE WIRE. Yeah, I’ve heard all the complaints about its use of contemporary profanity, and there are arguments supporting and condemning that, but to all those who take issue, I say get over it. This is some of the most compelling storytelling you’re likely to see on television (or anywhere, for that matter) and DEADWOOD’S cast turn in performances no award show could do justice to. Hey, if you don’t like Westerns, great acting and vivid dialogue–of both the poetic and barbaric variety–then do stay away. But if you’re genuinely interested in something outstanding on just about every front, then rent the Blu-rays of all three seasons of DEADWOOD. It’s true that the show was cancelled before Milch could bring the story to a full close, but since DEADWOOD’S characters are based on real-life individuals, there’s no story-line a quick trip to Wikipedia won’t bring to a satisfying (and downright historical) close.

To elaborate more on the show itself, I’ll let Blu-ray.com‘s Kenneth Brown tell you more as he has summed it up better than I. But you’ll have to visit the web site itself for Mr. Brown’s full review of the Blu-ray transfer and what it has in store for you. In the meantime, here are some of Mr. Brown’s thoughts on DEADWOOD the series:

Entrenched in real history and teeming with notable men and women who lived in the late 19th century, Deadwood tells the unsavory, at-times explicit tale of a crime-infested South Dakota boom town that experienced a rapid economic and cultural expansion during the Black Hills Gold Rush of the mid-1870s. The town, of course, is Deadwood (a settlement deemed illegal by the U.S. government because it was established on land promised to Native Americans in a 1968 treaty), and its diverse denizens come from all walks of life. Amidst the greed and madness rise two men — Seth Bullock (Timothy Olyphant), a former lawman who finds himself wearing a Sheriff’s badge once again, and Al Swearengen (Ian McShane), a temperamental entrepreneur, crime lord and pimp who holds enormous sway in the community — stubborn adversaries struggling to bring very different brands of law and order to Deadwood. But Bullock isn’t just a true-blue do-gooder and Swearengen isn’t the inhuman monster he first appears to be. Both men are far more complex creatures of habit whose destinies are intertwined.

Between them, a string of opportunists, killers, immigrants, prospectors, vagrants, thieves, gamblers, Old West icons and honest family folk, each one vying for a piece of the Black Hills’ riches. People like Sol Star (John Hawkes), Bullock’s business partner and faithful friend; Trixie (Paula Malcomson), a prostitute fighting to survive; Cy Tolliver (Powers Booth), a Swearengen rival; E. B. Farnum (William Sanderson), Deadwood’s mayor; Alma Garret (Molly Parker), widow and available bachelorette; Whitney Ellsworth (Supernatural‘s Jim Beaver), kindly prospector and all around good fellow; Wild Bill Hickok (Keith Carradine), legendary gunman and feared quick-draw; Calamity Jane (Robin Weigert), compassionate scout and frontierswoman; Doc Cochran (Brad Dourif), Deadwood’s physician; Mr. Wu (Keone Young), a foul-mouthed Chinese power player; and a slew of others (played to perfection by Garret Dillahunt, W. Earl Brown, Anna Gunn, Titus Welliver, Jeffrey Jones, Ricky Jay, Kim Dickens, Dayton Callie, Leon Rippy and other notable character actors), some loyal to Swearengen, some desperate to see Bullock prevail, some simply hoping to stay above the fray.

And oh, what performances Milch’s impeccably cast actors deliver. Olyphant draws strength from stillness, and his perceptive stare and unshakable stance lends his presence palpable authority (with or without a badge tucked beneath his jacket). McShane is as vile a devil as television has known, but the fragility and humanity that beats within the Deadwood demon’s heart is as deftly developed as it is masterfully portrayed. Malcomson’s fearless resolve demands respect even when her character’s decisions demand otherwise; Parker’s reserved demeanor and genteel spirit masks the conflict and addiction coming to bear on Alma’s soul; Boothe is arguably more vicious than McShane, bringing with him suitable menace and gravitas; Beaver is a breath of well-intentioned air in a dank and dangerous world; Carradine infuses his episodes with a sense of no-nonsense wisdom and nobility, even if his time in Deadwood is woefully brief; Douriff is a delightful jumble of nerves and knowledge; Weigert’s initially bullish masculinity soon softens and reveals something far more substantial; and the whole of the ensemble, regardless of the size or breadth of the individual actors’ roles, exudes calculated charisma and slow-brew intensity. Each one grabs a hold of Milch and his writers’ material as if it were Shakespeare’s finest, and their classically honed, meticulously refined performances are akin to those of a sprawling stage play born out of a bygone age.

Shakespeare’s name is haphazardly invoked in many a critical analysis, but other comparisons between Deadwood and the Bard’s work hold tremendous weight. Milch’s dialogue, though laced with near-gratuitous levels of modern profanity, is confidently constructed and crucial to whatever blessings or curses befall Deadwood; its Midwest rhythms, dense diction and gold-rush colloquialisms as poetic and lyrical as they are gruff and unseemly. (Don’t misunderstand: it isn’t difficult to keep up with the characters’ conversations, but the sheer complexity of the language employed makes second and third viewings a rewarding experience.) His characters, bristling with unkempt tempers and violent dispositions, are an unlikable band of strangely endearing riff-raff; each one an intriguing human being defined and warped by their volatile environment and the lawlessness of the era. His exploration of the politics, socioeconomics and cultural realities of the late 19th century are inexhaustible; his team’s attention to detail is overwhelming and the series’ ever-evolving production design is breathtaking and authentic; the themes he tackles and the questions he poses have no easy answers; the misfortune that unfolds and the victims that are discarded along the way elicit genuine emotion; and the stories that emerge are as mesmerizing and engrossing as they are unsettling. From beginning to end, over thirty-six episodes, Milch’s mind concocts a maze of moral ambiguity that turns the traditions of the genre on their ear, weaves a fascinating tapestry of bleak history and smart fiction, and suggests the once-stalwart TV Western could still one day make its triumphant return.

As for Deadwood‘s three-season lifespan, have no fear. While Milch certainly didn’t have the opportunity to go as far with the show as I’m sure he would have liked, the story is still a satisfying one, many of the various character arcs come to some manner of fruition, and the series’ conclusion, despite a number of loose ends, wraps things up nicely. Whether by foresight or design, Milch’s tendency to focus on more singular aspects of Deadwood life — be it business, politics or the changing tides of power — makes each season feel complete unto itself, and each successive season a welcome extension of an already full and generous tale. Rome and Carnivàle (an unexpected surprise I would love to see released on Blu-ray) weren’t so lucky, mind you, and the ramifications of their early cancellations are more readily felt in their final seasons. In other words, there’s little reason to avoid Deadwood: The Complete Series. It may not have been able to sustain itself in the cutthroat world of ratings, but it deserves as many chances as newcomers are willing to give it.

Long Lost, Alfred Hitchcock Interview Returns

In the fall of 1973, Tom Snyder devoted a full hour of his then brand-spankin’ new THE TOMORRROW SHOW to an interview with legendary director Alfred Hitchcock. The show was then repeated on Memorial Day 1980. Since that time, the footage was thought to be lost or destroyed.

Well, it seems sometime last year, a copy was discovered from the Memorial Day repeat. According to the Youtube poster:

The VHS (SP) tape itself was found to be in excellent condition. While properly stored in a climate controlled environment it apparently had not been played in decades. Great care has been taken to make the digital transfer.

Regardless of the story behind this tape (I have yet to find any information to counter this story, but if I do, I’ll be sure to post it here!), the interview itself is fantastic. A rare and wonderful look into the mind behind decades worth of masterful filmmaking.

The interview is broken up into 6 parts, the first part of which you can watch below. The others I have linked for you.

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6