Tag Archives: entertainment

The Importance of Travel Scenes

Posted on by
Travel Scenes in Miss Scarlett versus All Creatures

I’ve compared PBS shows before and I’d like to do it again but with a focus on what I call a travel scene. In this case the two shows are once again Miss Scarlet and All Creatures Great and Small. The reason for the comparison is they run back-to-back on Sunday evening so I get to see one after the other.

What is a Travel Scene

A travel scene, at least by my definition, is a scene in between two locations scenes where a character or characters travels from one location to the next. This includes time spent preparing for travel and, indeed, just that preparation can be the entirety of the Travel Scene.

Travel Scenes in Both Shows

The importance of a travel scene is something I’ve noticed before in any number of shows and movies. My general impression is shows that don’t use travel scenes are eager to get to the action, the meat and potatoes. If Miss Scarlett is going to Scotland Yard to confront Inspector New Guy the two scenes are not sandwiched around a travel scene.

Basically, Miss Scarlett tells someone she is going somewhere and the next scene she is at that location interacting with others.

Meanwhile, in All Creatures Great and Small when someone is heading out to visit Mrs. Pumfrey or another client, we generally see them putting on a coat, heading out, getting in the car, and then driving to the location. Perhaps not all of those things occur but at least a few.

What Value is there in a Travel Scene?

I think this is the most important question. What value does a travel scene bring to a show and how can such scenes cause harm? The harm is relatively simple to pinpoint; those sorts of scenes take away from the limited amount of runtime a show has available to it. If we just eliminate them, we have more time for the other scenes.

The value is more difficult to determine but for me it’s all about immersion and transition. When characters teleport around from one location to the other with no apparent means it bothers me. Timelines don’t work as going from places takes time but it is often ignored. Events happen out of sequence as a person couldn’t have done another scene because it supposedly took hours to get to a location.

When a character is seen getting ready to travel, driving, walking, taking a train, arriving outside at a new location, I believe. My reptilian brain thinks, yes, they’ve traveled from one location to another, I believe the upcoming scene.

In addition, travel scenes often allow for a lovely transition of beautiful scenery, period piece vehicles and clothes, and wide shots not possible in indoor location.

Conclusion

I don’t think every journey need be documented with some sort of a travel scene but I’m of the strong opinion that shows that take the time to show them are almost always better than those that do not.

Certainly, it’s not the travel scene alone that makes a show superior but is an indicator of attention to detail. Anyway, I’m curious, have you noticed travel scenes and the effect on the show?

Do you think travel scenes are important?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Best Medicine is Twitchy and Agitated

Posted on by
Best Medicine

One of my mother’s favorite shows is Doc Martin and she was excited for the release of the U.S. version, Best Medicine. We watched the premier last night and mother did not approve. I can’t say I much enjoyed it either.

There is an argument that if you loved the original you might be predisposed to dislike the remake but I’m not convinced that’s what is going on here. This remake doesn’t take a different tone; it seems to want to emulate the original faithfully. It fails, at least according to mom. Shall we try to find out why?

Sweet and Silly v. Twitchy and Agitated

I’ve not seen every episode of Doc Martin, as has mom, but I’ve seen a quite a few and the original is largely silly and sweet. Doc Martin himself is constantly agitated but the rest of the cast is generally more laid back. The setting is calm and peaceful.

Almost every character in Best Medicine is like Doc Martin in the original, agitated and twitchy. Louisa appears to have Turrets Syndrome, Aunt Lucy shouts all her lines, Sheriff Mark has none of the sweet but clumsy charm of Joe from the original, and Elaine the receptionist might be the most annoying character I’ve ever seen.

I get that she is supposed to be annoying but her portrayal is way too much. I’d call it cartoonish but that’s an insult to cartoons.

I’m not trying to criticize the actors here, I’m guessing this is what the director and writer desired. They are so twitchy and agitated that I get twitchy and agitated just watching them. It’s painful.

Only Bert and Al seem in any way relatable to the original characters but they are barely in the first episode.

Events are Rushed in Best Medicine

Another big problem is the speed at which everything unfolds. The storyline speeds along like the Enterprise at Warp 10. We are introduced to the quirks of all the characters through exposition almost immediately upon meeting them. Doc Martin’s blood phobia is hammered home.

Man boobs. Estrogen. More man boobs. Infidelity. Happy resolution. It all happens almost without stop. Not to mention Doc Martin’s inability to connect the dots on the two cases was baffling. I guessed immediately.

Louisa and Sheriff Mark’s storyline speeds along and the willingness of all parties to immediately confide in Doc Martin just seemed wrong. Why are these people saying these things to a virtual stranger?

Wokeism

Generally, I’m not put off by trying to insert a little diversity into an older show. Here we have two inter-racial couples one of whom is gay and it just seems a little forced. The gay couple were actually the most appealing characters in the episode so I can’t complain too greatly.

Conclusion

Listen, it’s only the first episode. Maybe things will calm down and they won’t continue to rush as much. Maybe the characters will settle in and become less agitated and twitchy. I’m hopeful but I suspect things won’t improve.

Did you like it?

Tom Liberman

The Absence of Two Women Interacting in Media

Posted on by

A friend of mine recently posted a meme about how few times women interact in Lord of the Rings movies.

It’s not the first time I’ve seen this sentiment and I gave my stock reply. All the main characters in the movie are male and because it’s rare to have two side characters driving a scene, the lack of two women interacting was not a great surprise.

After that I began to think about the situation a bit and, while I think my sentiment is correct, I decided to examine some of my own novels for comparable situations. Here is what I found.

Male Centric Novels

I have several novels where all the main characters are male and, while I didn’t go over them exhaustively, I did my best to remember how many times I wrote two women interacting. Not many. Women characters played prominent roles in these novels but largely they merely interacted with the male characters and not with one another.

To be honest, there were very few scenes in which two women even appeared together, let alone interacted.

Female Centric Novels

I’ve also written novels where all the lead characters are women. Now, obviously, they spend most of the novel interacting with one another but I started thinking about how often two men interacted in those novels. After all, it’s the same situation, just in reverse. All the main characters are women, so what about the men?

I came up with a few circumstances when two men interacted with one another in these novels but it was quite rare and the interaction was brief. But it does occur.

Mixed Gender Leads

This one was pretty obvious. When there is a mix of male and female leads in my novels, there is a great deal of interaction between two men or two women. All lead characters of course. Still, how often in those novels did a pair of side characters interact? It’s sort of the same argument. How often do side characters interact over the course of a novel.

There are a few moments of interaction but for the most part, lead characters drive all the scenes.

Is it a Problem?

Now we get to the heart of the inquiry. Is the fact that side characters don’t interact with each in a meaningful way a problem? No, my original reply stands. The underlying question is if there aren’t enough female lead characters.

This is a more complex question to be sure. We do see a plethora of female leads in movies and television shows nowadays but often they behave essentially as a male character but in a female body. Often, they display Mary Sue traits which only creates derision.

There are plenty of compelling female lead characters in literature, we need look no further than Jane Austen to see the blueprint and to Star Trek’s Uhura as excellent examples.

Why don’t we have more representative characters of this nature? Don’t look at me, I’m doing my best. Read a few of my novels then come complaining to me.

Tom Liberman

Watson is Watson not Sherlock

Posted on by
Watson

I finished watching the pilot episode of Watson and I came away shaking my head in disbelief. I’m an enormous Sherlock Holmes fan. I’ve read all the official Arthur Conan Doyle stories and novels and a number of Holmes stories by other authors.

When I heard about a new Sherlock Holmes spinoff television show, Watson, excitement flowed through my neurons, as did fear. Excitement because it seemed like a new spin on the Sherlock Holmes lore with the potential to be quite interesting. Fear because it might disappoint. No spoilers here, my disappointment is immeasurable, and my day is ruined. Why? Let’s discuss.

So Many Things Wrong with Watson

There are many things wrong with Watson and most of them are the same problems manifested in a lot of shows these days. A lot of exposition, too many pretty people playing roles for which they clearly are not suited, fast-paced dialog that is impossible to follow, and lots of mumbling. Having mentioned all those horrors, they are not the major problem with the show.

The Big Problem with Watson

Watson is Sherlock! I’m not kidding. The character of Watson is not playing the character of Watson. He’s playing Sherlock Holmes. Watson is the solid and discreet companion. He is the stalwart friend. He is kind. He is sturdy. He is a people person.

Sherlock Holmes is a jerk. He’s addicted to cocaine. He’s not a people person. He’s intolerant of those who don’t have his exceptional gifts. He’s condescending. He’s impatient.

In the pilot, Watson is Holmes. He’s not Watson. He’s the genius diagnostic physician who through observation and Wikipedic knowledge of diseases is able to figure out what ails the patient. Eventually patients.

He’s condescending to his staff. He’s addicted to pills. He’s brusque. He’s overbearing in his know-it-all attitude.

What were they Thinking?

Who is this show designed to please? Anyone who is a Sherlock Holmes fan knows this isn’t a show about Watson, it’s a show about Dr. Sherlock. The show is titled Watson! Watson. The entire show is advertised as being about Watson. I’m utterly baffled.

Would I like to see a modern and reimagined Watson navigating the world? Yes, by golly, I would. I’m not exactly sure how such a show would work, I could put on my writer’s cap and likely come up with something but that’s not my job today.

Did anyone like it? Why? I’d be interested in hearing what you have to say.

Tom Liberman

The Penguin is Just Plain Boring

Posted on by
The Penguin

It’s not often a comic book adaptation is boring, but The Penguin manages it with honors. Full disclosure, I am not generally a fan of comic book movies. They are usually ridiculously stupid with contrived action sequences, over the top special effects used to replace meaningful dialog and filled with enormous plot holes. Not that The Penguin doesn’t suffer from some of this as well.

The bigger problem is the show is just plain boring. There are huge segments of nothing happening in order to get us to a boring soliloquy that is supposed to touch us emotionally. Rage, sympathy, understanding, pity, whatever. None of it works.

The Penguin

What is The Penguin about? It’s about the rise of Oswald Cobblepot from organized crime button man to the king of crime in Gotham City. It follows on the heels of The Batman movie in which Colin Farrel played the titular character.

Oz, as he is called throughout the series because he has yet to earn The Penguin sobriquet, is a member of the Falcone crime family at the beginning. He murders the newly crowned boss of the family in a fit of rage and events spiral from there. His main foil is the sister of the boss, Sofia, played by Cristin Miloti.

He also picks up Victor as a sidekick when the boy attempts to steal hubcaps from the Penguin Mobile.

Why is it so Boring?

I’m going to have to get into a little bit of my own writing experience in order to explain why I think the show ended up so incredibly dull. I couldn’t make it through most episodes and was looking at my phone for extended periods.

When I write a novel, I try to flesh out pretty much everything that is going to happen. This includes most of the important scenes, conflicts, various resolution points, and, of course the ending. What I don’t have finalized in my mind is the vital middle work. In order for my big scenes to have meaning, I’ve got to lead up to them. I have to lay the groundwork. I must include foreshadowing, character development, and other writing elements in order to get the audience immersed and ready for the big scene.

This is the hard work of a novel, at least for me it is. The big scenes are easy to write. They largely write themselves. What’s hard is getting to them.

I think the writers did a pretty good job of imagining the big scenes. They knew where they wanted to get. The Penguin, Sofia, Victor, or another minor character has a big, long soliloquy all ready to go, all ready to punch home a point to the audience.

The problem is twofold. First, there are far too many big speeches, three or four an episode at least. It’s impossible to lay the groundwork for that many monologues. It’s almost like they pretty much gave up even trying. We skip over everything in order to rush from one big, boring speech to the next. The speeches themselves are probably pretty good, they are certainly acted powerfully, but because there is no buildup, they left me flat, bored.

One Example

I don’t want to waste a lot of your time giving example after example of what I’m talking about so I’ll only give one. Oswald sways the other crime families to his side. He gives a big speech while passing out beers from a ridiculously oversized cooler.

Ok, great. That could be interesting. The problem is we’ve barely seen any of the other families, there are no scenes where they are convinced to come to the big meeting. They are just there, the scene prefabricated and ready for the speech. Who are they? The Tongs are the only one we’ve sort of met. Other than that, just actors standing around pretending to look impressed.

I’m not invested because nothing led me to this moment. I suppose the big speech is fine although the oversized cooler really does bother me. I mean, there are like ten people there. Ok, enough, must move on.

Lots of Torture

As a side note, there is way too much torture. I guess that turns some people on. Baddies getting tortured. I don’t like it. It’s just awful. The episode about Sofia was impossible to watch. It was designed to get us into her mindset for when her big speeches come but it was just gratuitous and unhelpful.

If you like torture, well, have no fear, there is yet another torture scene coming soon.

Other Aspects

The acting is good, the music is fine, the sets are largely great, the cinematography is well done. The production values are top notch throughout. I honestly think, and judging by the predominantly positive reviews, this is the sort of thing people want. Hollywood knows what they are doing, I guess.

Conclusion

It’s not for me.

Tom Liberman

Local Law Enforcement and The Marlow Murder Club

Posted on by
The Marlow Murder Club

I just finished watching the Marlow Murder Club and took away something from it that I did not expect. I’m not going to get into a detailed review of why the show is good or bad but instead talk about the real-world ramifications that I’m not sure were even intended. Law enforcement isn’t engaged with the citizens they are supposed to protect and serve.

The Marlow Murder Club tells the story of Judith Potts, a retired woman living in a large estate she inherited from an aunt, and her involvement and investigation of a local murder.

The Basic Plot of The Marlow Murder Club

It’s important to understand the plot of the Marlow Murder Club in order to understand the topic of today’s post. Judith Potts is swimming along in the river when she overhears an argument followed by a gunshot. She immediately begins to investigate.

Eventually there are more murders and Potts involves Suzie Harris, a local dogwalker, and Becks Starling, the wife of the town’s church leader.

Local Law Enforcement

The constabulary is led by DS Tanika Malik who is new to the job and eager to prove her worth although suffering somewhat from imposter syndrome. Malik’s team of investigators is able enough but the leads they follow don’t get them any closer to solving the crime. Meanwhile, Potts finds useful clue after useful clue.

Eventually Malik recognizes Potts is helpful and hires on the trio to aid in the investigation. That’s the point I’d like to discuss today.

It neatly coincides with the brilliant but hard to watch miniseries We Own this City. In that show Treat Williams plays Brian Grabler, a retired Baltimore detective now teaching at the police academy. At one-point Grabler gives a monolog where it lambastes the Baltimore police department’s personnel as unable to investigate crime. They do not have the skills nor the contacts. They never get out of their cars, he says.

This is, in my opinion, an enormous disconnect which impacts both citizens and law enforcement in a negative fashion. The officers just are not in the communities they protect serve. The people in those communities don’t know the officers and the officers don’t know the people.

Officers spend their off hours drinking at the union lodge, not in the community at the local pub. They don’t go have breakfast at the diner where everyone who is anyone in town meets. They don’t get their hair cut at the barbershop. Thus, they are unable to solve crimes with the help of the locals. The focus isn’t even really on solving crimes, it’s on generating revenue but that’s another topic.

The Rural and Urban Divide

All the problems I just listed here are exacerbated by a large population. In rural areas with small populations, it’s easier for law enforcement to be a part of the fabric of the community. In urban areas the opposite is true and I think, sadly, a lot of law enforcement departments have just given up trying to be part of the community. They don’t live there, they don’t socialize there, they avoid the places they patrol.

In rural areas people find it difficult to understand why urban dwellers don’t trust the police. While in urban areas people don’t understand unconditional support for law enforcement. What’s wrong with those idiots? Don’t they see how it is?

They do see, they just see it from their own lens.

Solutions

Solutions are not easy in a densely populated urban region. Police have outreach programs where they visit schools and what not but that really doesn’t solve the disconnect problem. Law enforcement officers must be part of the community they serve. There must be trust.

I think the slow way back involves local police offices scattered liberally throughout an urban center. A small number of officers who remain in that area patrol on foot, have breakfast, grab a brew, and create relationships with the people. It will take time, it will take money, and it will take the desire to change.

Is all that possible in today’s climate of distrust, even hate? I’m not sure. Still, I advocate the effort.

Tom Liberman

I Found Joe Pickett Inauthentic

Posted on by
Joe Picket Inauthentic

I just finished watching the penultimate episode of the first season of Joe Pickett and I’ve just about had enough. I found the show to be almost completely inauthentic. The premise is incredibly interesting, and it’s based on a popular book series by C. J. Box.

The titular character is a game warden in Wyoming fulfilling a childhood dream between he and his brother. Joe’s wife, Marybeth is pregnant with a son; and they already have two daughters. Joe seems resolved to be a good father, throwing off the genetic heritage of an alcoholic and abusive father. Sound interesting? I thought so also.

My Wyoming Bona Fides

Let me preface my thoughts with the fact I’m a City Slicker. Born and raised in St. Louis, Missouri. What do I know about authentic Wyoming you can rightly ask. It’s a fair question.

I can only tell you I went to college in Idaho and I have a number of friends from rural Missourah. Does this make me an expert in what is authentic Wyoming? No, it does not. If you disagree with my assessment, go ahead and let me know.

What’s Inauthentic about Joe Pickett

My background now divulged, let me tell you I found almost every character in Joe Pickett to be completely inauthentic. I didn’t believe they lived in Wyoming, that they grew up in Wyoming, that they were in any way related to Wyoming.

The town of Saddlestring didn’t seem like a small, northwestern town. The people in town had lots of unusual names. The men I know from rural areas tend to be named Bob, Dick, Tom, Glen, Brian, and Mike.

I just didn’t believe any of it. The sheriff didn’t act like a rural sheriff, at least to my eyes. The wealthy family seemed egregiously not Montana. All the gun toting seemed like someone’s fantasy of what it’s like to live in the west.

Don’t even get me started on the southern accents.

Northern Exposure

I want to spend a moment making a comparison to another show, Northern Exposure. It’s not exact but I think it largely illustrates my problem with the authenticity of Joe Pickett. In Northern Exposure the characters are varied, interesting, multi-dimensional and all of them, with the exception of Joel of course, came across to me as Alaskan, authentic.

The interior and exterior of the town of Cicely seemed authentic. I really believed this was Alaska and the actors were Alaskan. When I believe the people and places, I’m much more likely to become immersed in the show, to forget I’m watching and just experience.

The Experience of Joe Pickett

I never felt that Wyoming experience in Joe Pickett. Some of the cinematography was really beautiful but whenever we weren’t looking at vistas, I just wasn’t buying it.

Other Stuff

The plot went completely off the rails and a lot of stuff happened that made no logical sense but I don’t want to get heavily into all of that, although it certainly effected my enjoyment, or lack thereof, of the show.

Conclusion

Sadly, by the end of Joe Pickett I found myself shaking my head and almost every scene, completely out of immersion and into finding everything wrong. There were a lot of problems with the first season of the show but I thought its inauthenticity was an underlying issue that hurt everything else.

I won’t be watching season two.

Tom Liberman

Who is the Protagonist of Pretty Woman?

Posted on by
Pretty Woman

Whilst clicking my way through channels the other day I flicked past Pretty Woman and it got me thinking about the movie. Who is the protagonist is the question I ask myself as a Boomer. I am no longer the thirty-something year old infatuated with Laura San Giacomo.

I think it’s an interesting question because the obvious answer is Vivian, played by Julia Roberts. It is, after all, her story. She has the arc. Doesn’t she?

Edward has the Character Arc

The thing is, Vivian doesn’t really change much or at all. She’s the hooker with a heart of gold. She’s a little rough around the edges perhaps but she is clearly educated, intelligent, and capable. She starts that way and she finishes that way.

Edward, on the other hand, changes dramatically. He starts the movie as a corporate raider with no qualms about staging a leveraged buyout of Morse Industries, a shipbuilding company run by Jim Morse along with his grandson, David.

Early Edward is the villain of the movie. The corporate raider. The dismantler of capitalism. His interactions with Jim, David, and Vivian change him. That’s his arc. By the end of the movie, he is joining Morse Industries as a partner. He will build ships with the company rather than dismantling it and selling it off for profit.

We like the finished Edward. He’s the hero. He’s changed. He has an arc.

Edward, Jim, and Capitalism

In thinking about Edward and his arc in Pretty Woman, my thoughts turned to leveraged buyouts, private equity, and capitalism.

It seems to me that, generally, we now admire beginning Edward far more than finished Edward. Make as much money as possible for yourself and your shareholders.

Edward contrasts dramatically with old-school Jim Morse. Jim owns a company but isn’t interested in squeezing the maximum profit from it. He wants to build big, beautiful ships. Ships that serve our country, yards that employ people. His goal is to create, employ, and, of course make money. He’s a wealthy industrialist. His company is successful but not as profitable as it could be and thus a target for Edward and his leveraged buyout.

A Moment about Private Equity

I’m no naïve do-gooder who thinks Private Equity firms and leveraged buyouts have no place in capitalism. They are valuable tools to keep companies in line. They play a useful role in ending bloated companies with dozens of board members and executives earning enormous salaries, siphoning off all the profits. Such companies deserve their fate.

The problem is when the Edwards of the world can leverage a buyout of a largely successful company that isn’t squeezing maximum profits. We instinctively admire Jim Morse and his grandson. They are embodiment of the best parts of capitalism.

Build a great product, provide a useful service, employ hard-working people at a fair wage. That’s the end-result of healthy capitalism. We hate early Edward in Pretty Woman.

Conclusion

It’s a complicated problem and not easily solved. I do think the ability to borrow enormous sums and immediately declare bankruptcy and not pay them back if things go wrong is a big part of the problem. These days, the darling of the capitalistic world is early Edward. We should know better.

Tom Liberman

The Porter is Ultimately Disappointing

Posted on by
The Porter

I recently finished watching the BET+ series The Porter and came away fairly disappointed. The show tells the story of a group of porters working the railroad lines between Canada and the United States in the 1920s.

The porters face various obstacles in their quest to live their lives. These obstacles include racism and general unbridled capitalistic abuses. Why was I disappointed? Let me tell you.

Lost Story

The central story of the porter revolves around their desire to join the railroad union and improve their working conditions. The show itself highlights the problem in almost the opening scene when a young porter falls to his death off the top of a train car doing a job requiring more people than were allocated.

In addition, we see racism between the other employees of the railroad and the black porters. These are the two main stories, and they are both compelling, interesting, and historically accurate. There are also hints of the main character’s service in combat during World War I.

Sadly, these stories take a backseat for most of the show. Instead, we focus mainly on a porter working a gambling ring with a powerful black mobster in Chicago. A young woman trying to advance her career as an entertainer and examining her interracial relationship with the dissolute son of the railroad owner. And a nurse working in the black community to bring healthcare to the minority working class who are denied such at the white hospitals.

All three of these stories are moderately interesting at best and take a huge amount of time away from the more compelling stories.

I want to know about the union. I want to see the porters performing their jobs. There are a number of scenes with this focus but they are largely relegated to the back carriage of the show. This was the big problem for me. The compelling story, the reason for the show, the title of the show even, is just not developed well enough.

Acting in the Porter

The acting is fairly good with some standout performances from Mouna Traoré as Nurse Marlene Massey and Ronnie Rowe Jr. as Zeke Garrett the union agitator. The rest of the cast is fairly good to mediocre.

Sets and Cinematography

The sets are largely great with the interior carriage scenes meticulous and beautiful. The homes the porters live in are believable and well-done. The scenes themselves are largely framed nicely with a variety of angles.

The show does heavily rely on CGI for the exterior train shots and it’s not so great.

Music

The music is largely good and maintains a background presence rather than dominating the scenes although it does get obtrusive now and again.

Conclusion

I think the show had a great deal of potential and thus my disappointed. If it didn’t have such a high bar then its ultimate disappointment wouldn’t bother me as much. It could have great but they really just lost track of the compelling stories and focused on things that held little interest for me. Others may think differently.

Tom Liberman

All Four Seasons of True Detective (to date)

Posted on by
True detective

I finally finished watching Season Three of True Detective, the last one I watched, and now it’s time for the big recap. What I hope to do with this review is compare and contrast the seasons to one another, pointing out the good and the bad. What went right and what went wrong.

I already compared Season One to Season Four of True Detective if you want to read about that. I’ll be making some of the same points here though. On with it.

Believable Detectives

In a detective show it is clear to me the detectives themselves must be believable. I’m not saying they have to be great detectives. If they are terrible at their job, that can be believable under certain circumstances. It’s vitally important the audience believes.

Season One

Utterly believable. I believe Kohl and Marty are seasoned, capable detectives. They go about their business with professionalism. We see them doing their work on many occasions and not just getting key information fed to them.

Season Two

Largely unbelievable. It’s a given in this season that Ray, Ani, and Paul are not the cream of the crop. Ray is chosen for the case because he’s compromised. That being said, none of them manage to do any sort of real detective work. Everything either falls into their laps or happens to be the first thing they investigate. I did not believe.

Season Three

Pretty much a mirror image of Season One. I absolutely believe Wayne and Roland are detectives, good ones.

Season Four

Utterly unbelievable. I just cannot believe that either Liz or Evangeline holds the position and rank they do. Both do little to no detective work in the series. Both rely on third parties to get all the pertinent information.

Likeable Protagonists

It’s useful if the audience likes the protagonists. I’m certainly not saying they have to be kind, nice, generous, thoughtful, and everything else that gets wrapped up into likeable; but I shouldn’t despise them. I shouldn’t find them repugnant and hate every moment they are on the screen.

Season One

Marty and Kohl are complicated characters and in many ways, not particularly likeable. They have big old flaws. But, in the end, I like both of them greatly while recognizing their flaws.

Season Two

I hate Ray and Ani. Hate. Paul is more a figure of pity than anything else but he’s certainly not likeable. Ray is an awful, despicable person and Ani isn’t any better.

Season Three

Again, we have two flawed characters. Both with problems but both likeable in the end. Roland and Wayne want to solve the case, they care about the missing girl. They are decent human beings although hardly perfect.

Season Four

It’s hard to even describe how much I despised Liz and Evangeline. They are terrible people. Just awful. Horrible to everyone they meet. I can’t remember hating protagonists this much in any other show.

Sundried Film Making Features

I’m not going with a season breakdown here. The music, sets, camera work, and everything else is almost always fantastic. One exception is the mumbling of Wayne in Season Two. He’s not always understandable. Other than that, all four seasons are superb.

Comprehensible Story

Season One

I followed the plot all the way through with little or no confusion. It all made sense. Events happened in good sequence and I was rarely, if ever confused.

Season Two

A jumble. The case was far too convoluted and wasn’t even really about what it was apparently about. I was totally lost on several occasions and by the end just didn’t care anymore.

Season Three

It was largely understandable but the three separate timelines were one too many. The two timelines in Season One worked very nicely. Mainly because they were sequential. In Season Three we are constantly transported back and forth in time and it became too much. Particularly when it came to the final episode. More on that in a minute.

Season Four

This one wasn’t even really a detective story, it was a macabre horror story. It didn’t make any sense at all for the most part. The entire supernatural element was jammed at us the entire series run and yet turned out to be a giant red-herring. I understood events to some degree but it was generally a bit of a mess.

Stick the Landing

The ending must be right or everything before it loses its luster.

Season One

Perfection. Marty’s final gift to Kohl wrapped it up with a pretty bow and sent me away completely satisfied.

Season Two

The story itself ended incomprehensibly as mentioned earlier but if anyone didn’t see the final twist with Ray and his son coming, they must have fallen asleep and stopped paying attention. Dull, contrived, sappy.

Season Three

I’m not even sure they knew how to end this season and just threw everything at us in a mess of a final episode. I was quite satisfied with Julie’s final fate but everything else just seemed tacked on. All the relationship things just did not land.

Season Four

I actually really liked the resolution to the case here but it flew in the face of everything they gave us before. I imagine it angered many who were invested in the supernatural events preceding.

Conclusion

Season One is fantastic. Season Two is poor. Season Three was almost as good as Season One except the mumbling and failed finale. Season Four was fine if you like supernatural horror but was otherwise not even really a True Detective show.

Season Five? I’ll be waiting.

Tom Liberman

True Detective Season Two a Horrific Tragedy

Posted on by
True Detective Season Two

I finally managed to choke down the last episode of True Detective Season Two and I’m glad. I’m glad it’s finally over. Have you ever repeatedly hit yourself in the face with a hammer? What a slog. Season One is some of the finest television I’ve ever seen. Season Four has moments but was ultimately a letdown, perhaps as I watched it directly after True Detective Season One that is to be expected.

Season Two. What to say? I’ll give it a firm do not recommend. It has a fine cast including Colin Farrell, Rachel McAdams, Taylor Kitsch, and Vince Vaugn but they just can’t overcome the morose writing and directing.

What is True Detective Season Two About?

Darned good question. I’ve seen it and I’m pretty much in the dark. A financier guy who has a bunch of mob money meant to be invested in the high-speed rail project in California gets killed. From there, you’ll need a flow chart.

There are some blue diamonds from a robbery years ago with corrupt cops, vengeful orphans, Russian mobsters, Mexican Mobsters, Arabic Mobsters, corrupt politicians, a new age touchy feely dad, a homosexual war hero with a girlfriend, a corrupt cop, other corrupt cops, corrupt land evaluators, a singer in a nightclub who is a Venezuelan human trafficker, a psychiatrist is also a human trafficker but the bad kind, not the nice kind, sex workers, a black guy who is in charge but I don’t have any idea who he is, a white guy who is friends with the homosexual guy but isn’t. Hell, I have no idea. I lost track of it somewhere around episode three and never got it back.

Relief. Any Relief. Please.

About two thousand years ago some playwrights came up with the idea of comic relief. Shakespeare knew about it. It’s generally considered useful. The people who wrote this mess figured, nah, over-rated. What they figure we want to see are scenes where two people talk to each other in gravelly voices, enunciating each word slowly with the pretentious vocabulary of a dandy Harvard English Professor.

To spice things up between these interminable conversations they throw in an implausible shootout. I use the word implausible generously.

The show is absolutely relentless in its humorless, overly dramatic tone. It never stops. It’s like the Terminator. It will not stop until you are bored and looking at funny cat videos on TikTok, and even then, it will keep going.

Please, you’ll beg, just one joke. A funny line. A prat. I mishap. Anything. Please. For the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I just want to smile once, I don’t even need to laugh, something, anything. A dad joke. A knock-knock joke. Denied! Or, in the language of the show; A predilection for humorous anecdotes is not my natural inclination.

Acting

I can’t blame the actors, it’s clearly the directing. I’ve read the producer of True Detective Season One was given total control of Season Two. Absolute power doesn’t end well. Poor Vince Vaugn has to deliver those awful lines in one slowly spoken conversation after the next. He’s been labeled as miscast but I don’t think it’s his fault. He does the best he can with what he’s got.

Colin Farrell’s son is clearly cast for a single purpose and they think it’s subverting expectations when it turns out to be false in the end. I saw that one coming from episode one and anyone who didn’t just wasn’t watching closely.

Stylish

The show is stylish to a fault. Every camera shot is perfectly diagrammed. Every background meticulously crafted. We get wide-angle shots, close-ups, deserts, cityscapes, redwoods. It’s all beautiful and gritty but it doesn’t seem real. It seems like a student film made by someone who worshipped Alfred Hitchcock but skipped all the other classes.

The Music

Overbearing. Even if a scene doesn’t seem tense, the music tells us it will be soon. The music doesn’t enhance here, it leads the mood. You know exactly what is going to happen when the music starts playing in almost every scene.

Conclusion

I could go on. I won’t. Avoid this. A confusing, overbearing, mess.

Tom Liberman

Mr. Bates vs the Post Office Review

Posted on by
Mr. Bates

This is a difficult one for me to review objectively because the subject matter triggers me greatly. It tells the story of Alan Bates and hundreds of British subpostmasters fighting a power with limitless resources, the government. The entire story in Mr. Bates is everything Libertarians worry about in a government agency.

Basically, the Post Office installed faulty software in all their branches. The faults resulted in many subpostmasters showing accounting shortfalls. The government, along with the software developer, hid the faults, blamed the subpostmasters and sent them to jail, took their money, and largely ruined their lives.

Eventually one subpostmaster, the titular Mr. Bates, managed to raise enough ruckus to bring the attention to the public. It only took twenty-five years. Yep, this whole mess started in 1999 and isn’t fully resolved to this day.

Sadly, my job today isn’t to lambaste the British Post Office and government, it’s to review a television series, and that is what I will do.

Lots of Characters

Mr. Bates starts at the beginning of the disaster when Alan Bates loses his post office because of accounting shortfalls for which he refuses to accept responsibility. He asks for audits, software checks, and what not but is denied.

We then start to meet some of the other subpostmasters encountering the same difficulties. This leads to the biggest problem with the series, there are a lot of characters. It’s not really anyone’s fault and I think they did an admirable job of consolidating people and keeping the total down to a reasonable number. That being said, there are a lot of stories going on at the same time and the complexity of weaving them together is no easy task.

Acting

I found the acting in Mr. Bates to be largely top-notch with Toby Jones in the lead role particularly strong. He shows his determination to see the truth prevail but also his fatigue over the course of the decades long fight. His wife, played by Julie Hesmondhalgh is also quite strong in her role.

Ian Hart as Bob Rutherford is a particular standout although, as I mentioned, the acting is excellent throughout.

Cinematography, Music, and the Rest

All of the supporting features of the show were well done and believable. I was particularly impressed with the music which didn’t try to overwhelm us with emotions but simply enhanced the sometimes-traumatic story. All good work in my opinion.

The Story is the Thing

Mr. Bates is not a big budget, high-production, action movie. The horribly miscarriage of justice that all those subpostmasters suffered is the main star. It’s such a vile story, such a little guy against the government story, that you don’t really need anything else. I commend them for keeping it fairly simple because it could have gotten overly complex and tried too hard to manipulate the viewers emotional. It just told the story and told it properly.

Aftermath

Since the broadcast of Mr. Bates vs the Post Office, public awareness of the situation rose dramatically and reignited the legal proceedings, which as mentioned, continue on today. In that regard I find it impossible not to consider the show to be a spectacular success regardless of anything else.

Conclusion

I found myself immersed and oft-times riveted to the drama of the story. I was never bored although I suspect an audience looking for high-octane drama might find it slow-moving and somewhat dull.

A fantastic series I think well worth watching and not only because I’m a Libertarian.

Tom Liberman

Randall Emmett Taxpayer Funded Movie Industry

Posted on by
Randall Emmett and the Taxpayer Funded Movie Industry

I just read a fascinating story from the Los Angeles Times about how states are conned in the Taxpayer funded movie industry. Taxpayer funded movie industry, you rightly ask? I’m afraid so. How is that possible, you ask? Because we live in a free money, crony-capitalism country.

Basically, fly-by-night movie companies come to your state and film low-budget movies with aging name stars and get almost the entire thing paid for with tax dollars. From what I can tell, it’s largely a Ponzi scheme with the next state in line paying the overdue bills from the previous production. Let’s get into it.

Randall Emmett is Running the Show

Who is Randall Emmett? A movie producer who was accused of various sexual transgressions on his movie sets and in his personal life. This did not stop him from producing movies. He just started up a new production company making low-budget movies.

How is this a Taxpayer Funded Movie Industry?

The scheme is relatively simple. Many states are eager to have a movie made in their confines. They use Taxpayer money to “reimburse” film-makers who shoot in their states. The film-maker usually makes various promises about how long the shoot will take, where, and how many jobs it will create. The usual business mantra for fleecing states of Taxpayer money.

In any case, they film the movie on a shoe-string budget paying a high-profile, but usually late in his career actor, seven figure salaries for a day or two of shooting. They then lollygag on payments to the rest of people involved, including the law enforcement teams assigned to the set.

Then it’s off to a new state, with new promises, a few million dollars to pay off the old debts and a new actor. Rinse repeat. The movies themselves are largely trash although they probably generate enough money to make the entire enterprise profitable as long as there is another gullible governor lined up to dish out your money.

Scummy?

You bet. This is the world we live in. It’s easier to make a profit with Taxpayer funds and a bad movie than it is to produce a quality product.

The obvious problem here is that states are willing to dispense money to businesses on the promise of new movies, new factories, new jobs, etc. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The state and the corporations need to be separate for the health of both.

There should be no tax-breaks, no reimbursements, and no incentives of any kind to conduct business in a particular state or municipality. A business should only survive and thrive on the merits of its product or service.

Businesses and politicians are far too chummy, and it is not working for We the People. It’s not.

Tom Liberman

True Detective Season One versus Night Country

Posted on by
True Detective

I just finished watching True Detective: Night Country and I earlier watched True Detective Season One. I think they often have a similar structure and yet where one succeeds almost universally the other largely fails.

The reason I want to go into a deep examination is the superficial reasons for the reception of the two shows, basically the gender of the two leads. This has nothing to do with why one is largely great while the other is more pedestrian.

Or, to speak more plainly, True Detective isn’t better than Night Country simply because two men are the leads in the first and two women in the later. Let’s get to it.

Haunted Leads in True Detective

One of the most striking similarities in the structure of the two seasons is the haunted nature of the leads. Cohle and Danvers, played by Matthew McConaughey and Jodie Foster, both lost children earlier in their lives and are traumatized by this loss.

True Detective shows us this when Cohle arrives for dinner at Marty’s house staggering drunk. Over the course of the dinner Marty’s wife begins to ask Cohle some personal questions in which he reveals the death of his daughter. Marty’s wife, played by Michelle Monaghan, responds with kindness and understanding. Cohle begins to shed some of his trauma at this dinner.

Meanwhile, we are sort of vaguely told Danvers lost a son through some flashbacks of her playing with the boy and a stuffed polar bear missing an eye.

I felt for Cohle, genuinely. The scene where he arrived drunk was inexplicable until we understood, we felt his existential dread at meeting a happy family. I connected with Cohle on a level I never did with Danvers. Danvers was just angry but I never really understood her pain, it wasn’t demonstrated to me.

The Flawed Hero Trying to do Good

Marty, played by Woody Harrelson, is an extremely flawed man as is Navarro, played by Kali Reis. Marty has a weakness for crazy women while Navarro has anger management problems. The difference is Marty is completely self-aware of his flaws. He knows he messes up and wants to be better, he just can’t get there. Navarro seems to have none of this self-awareness. She is angry and proud of it.

A vitally important scene occurs when Marty and Kohle visit a house of ill-repute and Marty spots an underage girl working there. He tries to save her. Later he protects his daughter in his own, inimitable way. We see that fundamentally; Marty wants to be a good person. He is trying.

We never get that from Navarro. She seems perfectly content in her self-destructive life. Her love for her sister is substituted for Marty’s attempts to be a good person. It just didn’t resonate with me.

Despite his serious and obvious flaws, I like Marty. I’m rooting for him. I can’t say the same for Navarro. I don’t like her much and I don’t really care what happens to her.

The Criminal Investigation

Marty and Cohle investigate the gruesome murder of a young, female prostitute. Danvers and Navarro investigate the mysterious death of a group of scientists.

In True Detective we see the investigation. We see Marty and Cohle working the scenes, interviewing witnesses, detecting. Big chunks of the show are dedicated to watching the two professional work their magic. We also see their partnership in which their strengths are combined to make them greater than the sum of their parts. They are good detectives and respect each other immensely, that’s shown through a series of scenes in which they are being interviewed by other detectives about another crime years later.

Danvers and Nararro don’t do a lot of investigating. Most of the useful information about the case comes from Prior, Danver’s young officer, and others associated with the two. They don’t like or respect each other. They are filled with rage and bitterness. There is nothing to like about their relationship.

I believed Marty and Cohle as detectives but I didn’t have that feeling about Danvers and Navarro. I imagined a long history of law enforcement work with Marty and Cohle and believed it absolutely. For the life of me I can’t figure out how Danvers and Navarro advanced in their professions. They just are not believable.

The Supernatural Angle

Both shows have a supernatural feeling to them. There is Carcosa and the Night Country. In True Detective the supernatural theme is lurking in the background but the nature of the crime is clearly human. The opposite is true in Night Country. The supernatural angle is played up from the very first scene when a herd of Caribou stampede off a cliff for no apparent reason.

The supernatural element came along organically and sparsely in True Detective and neither of the leads really paid it much attention to it other than Cohle’s philosophical rambling. It played a front and center role in Night Country. A huge number of scenes showed people having supernatural experiences with the dead.

I felt Night Country just wasted a good chunk of time showing us scenes of the supernatural rather than storytelling, detecting. Every time something supernatural happened, I’d roll my eyes and lose interest. A lot of it seemed to be played for the shock value rather than furthering the story.

A Moment for What the Two Shows didn’t Have in Common

Humor. I can’t tell you how many times I laughed out loud at the antics of Cohle and Marty. Their interactions, their dialog, was often hilarious. Night Country? I don’t recall laughing once. It was grim and unrelenting.

Likeable characters. I liked Marty. I liked Cohle, I liked many of the bit players. I can’t think of a single character in Night Country I truly liked. Young Prior probably comes closest.

Conclusion

True Detective Season One worked on almost every level and I consider it some of the finest entertainment available. True Detective: Night Country largely failed. It’s not a terrible show. The acting, cinematography, sets, and music are terrific. It just failed to make me care, to tell a cohesive narrative, to immerse me.

Tom Liberman

Monsieur Spade and the Lost Opportunity

Posted on by
Monsieur Spade

I recently finished watching Monsieur Spade on AMC and I’m sorry to say I didn’t enjoy it all that much. It’s a real lost opportunity because I absolutely love the premise of the show.

As a young man I read Dashiell Hammit and the Maltese Falcon is a happy memory indeed. I’ve enjoyed watching many a movie with a noir theme and who doesn’t love the hardboiled detective Sam Spade and his many imitators?

What went wrong with Monsieur Spade? Let’s discuss.

Premise

The premise is c’est magnifique. Sam Spade is retired and now living in the small town of Bozouls in the south of France. We imagine his peaceful existence won’t stay that way for very long and we are right. He came to the region years ago to deliver the daughter of a client to her reported father. While trying to do so he met and married a wealthy French woman, Gabrielle, who has since died and left Monsieur Spade her vineyards.

The father of the girl, who is now a teenager, is a miscreant of the worst sort and involves Sam and others in the town in an all but impossible to follow plot involving a boy-genius and so many other parties it boggles the old gray matter of your narrator.

Noir Dialog and nothing but Noir Dialog

We certainly expect Monsieur Spade to deliver laconic lines and always with a cool demeanor. But do we expect every single line of dialog to be a battle of noir? I don’t. It’s not only Sam who talks like this but the rest of the cast as well. It’s a figurative battle of pithy utterances, one after the other, batted back and forth like a ball at a Wimbledon tennis match. Boom, bang, smash, crush.

Sam is never perturbed; he always knows exactly what to say and he’s not alone. The entire cast delivers nothing but noir and more noir.

“It’s raining, Sam.”

“Here I thought it was a poodle with a full bladder on the balcony.”

“Poodles are German, not French.”

“How can they tell?”

It never stops. Just one pithy comment after the next and it gets annoying all too quickly. It was great for about half an episode but it loses its charm quickly. We need fully developed characters who behave like real people.

Nonsensical Plot

Paraphrasing a laconic Spartan after a long speech entreating their aid in battle; “We no longer remember the first half of your plot, and thus can make nothing of the remainder.” There is a lot to process. I’m not going to get into it all but give a few examples.

The supposed monk who seemed like he was going to be an important character. He shows up, kills half-a-dozen nuns, one of whom was the most interesting character in the series, and then vanishes until the finale, supposedly taken off by French gendarmes to Paris. When did he get back? Who is he? Where did he come from? None of it is answered.

There are dozens of moments and characters like this. Characters make no sense and act irrationally at best. The entire side plot with the singer and her drunken husband didn’t further the plot in any way and his death seemed so unnecessary. Likewise, the death of the young English spy came out of nowhere and just baffled me.

The young girl suddenly knows details about her life she previously did not but no explanation as to how she learned them. I could go on but I shall cease in the name of brevity.

Sam Spade Torturing a Guy

I honestly don’t like a protagonist who tortures someone, particularly when the character already knows all the information he needs. It’s not a good look. Why the guy was there to kill Monsieur Spade in the first place made no sense.

The Ending

I can’t even really describe the baffling ending to the show. A character shows up from nowhere, never seen before, who knows everything, and solves the problem, I guess, sort of, I’m not really sure? Wow, that was satisfying. I won’t go into detail. It was terrible.

Conclusion

Give us a season two! Let the actors act like people instead of noir caricatures. Give me a simpler plot and let Monsieur Spade solve it, not some random third-party interloper. What a terrible disappointment this show turned out to be.

Tom Liberman

Funny Woman is Good but not Funny

Posted on by
Funny Woman

I’ve watched the first three episodes of Funny Woman and am really enjoying it. I went out to IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes to read what other people think and I found an interesting range of opinions. A number of people really like the show while others do not find it funny at all. That’s the interesting part, the show is titled Funny Woman but it’s not a comedy. Let’s get into it.

Funny Woman is not a Comedy

I think the fact Funny Woman is actually more of a drama than a comedy is one of two things causing people to dislike the show. I must be clear, if you don’t like it, I’m not saying you’re wrong. You can like or dislike a show all you want. That’s subjective. What’s objective is the show isn’t a comedy. It’s a show about a woman comedian trying to make it in the entertainment world.

Now, the show does have comedic moments, or at least attempts them. The scene in the department store based apparently on an episode of The Monkeys is not particularly humorous although that is clearly the intent.

Gemma Arterton isn’t Trying to Make you Laugh

The second thing is Gemma Arterton, who plays the titular Funny Woman, Barbara Parker/Sophie Straw character, is not trying to make you laugh. She playing a character trying to make a 1960s audience laugh. Her character’s idea of comedy is based on Lucille Ball, not modern standards. Arterton is acting, not telling jokes.

I’m going to mention the part of Parker/Straw being portrayed by Arterton is extremely difficult. Arterton isn’t a comedic actress and it’s not a comedic role. Still, her job is to make us believe the people around her find her hilarious. That’s no easy trick but I think she’s pulling it off remarkably well, not perfectly perhaps but more than good enough. Better than most could manage.

Full Review

I’m going to wait until I’ve watched all six episodes to give a full review but I absolutely like what I’ve seen so far. Stay tuned.

Conclusion

The show is complicated and I think that’s responsible for the majority of the negative opinions. In our minds we think it’s a comedy, that Arterton is supposed to be funny to our eyes. In reality it’s not that. She’s playing a part.

This confusion, at least in my opinion, creates a disconnect between reality and our expectations of reality.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman

Is Rebel Moon Good or Buzzy and which is Better

Posted on by
Rebel Moon

I just read an article about the Netflix movie Rebel Moon: Part One – A Child of Fire and it brings to mind an interesting conundrum when producing entertainment. Is it better for people to like the movie, book, television show, play or other production or is it better for there to be a lot of buzz about it?

It’s a question I, as a writer myself, definitely think about. I imagine a lot of people making things in this modern age of social media think about also.

What’s the Difference Between Good and Buzzy?

Good is difficult to define and there is always the subjective versus objective debate. But, for the purpose of this article, let’s assume good means people in general and professional critics enjoy your work.

I’ll define buzzy as something people are talking about. Not necessarily in a good way. If something is truly terrible but intriguing, people will talk about it.

Rebel Moon is Buzzy

Judging by both audience and professional reviews, Rebel Moon isn’t very good. I’ve seen and read several reviews and also read comments by fans of the genre and they all seem rather disenchanted with it. A few positive reviews focus on the visuals and what not. With that being said, I think it’s safe to say Rebel Moon isn’t a particularly good movie but it is a certainly very buzzy movie.

People are talking about Rebel Moon all over the internet and mostly, although not exclusively in a negative way.

Good and Buzzy

Obviously, I’d love for my novels and short stories to be very good and to have people talking about them. That’s obvious but it’s not my question today. I think my novels and stories are quite good but there is certainly no buzz about them.

Financials

We can fairly safely say Reble Moon isn’t a good movie and it has a lot of buzz around it. It’s difficult to say if the movie is a financial success or not. Netflix is a subscription service and just because Rebel Moon shows hundreds of thousands of views doesn’t mean it is profitable. What makes it profitable for Netflix is if people are convinced to stay with the service or add the service because of Rebel Moon or its seemingly inevitable cavalcade of sequels and director’s cuts.

It does seem buzzy is better than good, from a purely financial point of view. This is not a universal rule though. There is some fatigue at play. If you produce the same sub-standard product again and again, even a huge amount of buzz doesn’t translate to profits, particular if you spend a great deal in production.

Fool me once, the saying goes.

Answer the Question Already

Would I prefer my novels and stories to get a huge amount of buzz on social media or would I prefer them to be good? It’s a fair question because sales for me are quite minimal. A few people have read my work and enjoyed it, or at least that’s what they tell me. If there was huge buzz about my novels and stories, I’d be making a significantly larger amount of money.

I’m never going to write anything I don’t like because there is no guarantee it will get buzz anyway. The question isn’t whether I’d write something bad in the hopes it gets buzz but which one I prefer. Buzz or quality.

To lay it out plainly. I write two novels, doing my level best to write them well. One is really good and one isn’t. The one that is good gets no buzz and the one that is bad gets a tremendous amount of buzz. Which novel makes me happier? The one that got buzz and money but makes people think I’m a crappy writer or the good one that doesn’t make any money but people really enjoy and feel they’ve gotten value from reading?

Conclusion

For me, I’d rather my novel be good than buzzy. That decision is certainly influenced by the fact I’m in a good financial situation even without huge profits from my novels.

The bottom line is my audience. People who read my novels spend a nominal amount of their money so that’s not as big a consideration as their time. It takes time to read a novel, many hours. Me, I want people to close the book, or device, and lean back with a satisfied smile. That was worth my time. I enjoyed that. I got value for my time and money. I’m glad I read that.

Tom Liberman

The Seventh Episode of Luck Illustrates Good not Great

Posted on by
Luck

I’ve been watching a 2011 television series called Luck. It stars Dustin Hoffman as recently released mobster Chester “Ace” Bernstein and his subtle plots for vengeance against those who conspired against him.

The first six episodes are astonishingly good. Great. Other than some audio problems requiring closed-captioning to understand the principal characters it is, in my opinion, one of the best series I’ve ever seen. Then came the seventh episode. Something happened. Something went wrong. Why? How? Let’s get into it.

The Seventh Episode of Luck

Luck starts the seventh episode with a bizarre recap of the story leading up to current events. It’s narrated in great detail and continues on for an abnormally long time. I sat there shaking my head, they haven’t done recaps before, who is the narrator, what is going on here? What prompted this?

Then the episode started. It wasn’t exactly like watching a different show but then again, it kind of was exactly like watching a different show. The characters, the actors, the sets, all pretty much the same but not.

Early on a kid appears out of nowhere and the veterinarian helps him but there’s no explanation, what’s going on? Then there is a big poker tournament out of nowhere. A rather gratuitous sex scene. Yes, there were sex scene before, but they furthered the story. The music is really obtrusive now, it was subtle before, enhancing, not telling me how to feel.

The actors aren’t speaking with nuance anymore, they’re saying directly only what was implied before. The kid scene spirals into inexplicable behavior by all parties. The old jockey is in an Alcoholic Anonymous meeting but it’s short. All the scenes are short, abrupt, whereas before they took a leisurely pace, slowly unfolded.

We’ve got a plethora of up-close head shots, every scene has them. We didn’t have that before, did we?

It’s not terrible but it’s not what it once was. What happened?

The Investigation of Luck

So, as the episode is rolling, I’m getting pretty distressed. I look it up. What could possibly have happened? During the filming of the Luck, during the seventh episode in particular, horses were injured and had to be put down. Horses were stopped from running while an investigation took place. Eventually HBO cancelled the series although not before the season was complete and a couple of episodes from a planned season two filmed.

The Difference

It’s impossible to determine exactly what happened during the investigation to alter the flow of the show but it’s pretty clear to me, people knew it was the end. Probably more than a few people felt terrible about the deaths of the horses and no longer had their heart in the show. It is quite apparent. The editing, the writing, the music, nothing from the seventh episode of Luck is up to the standard of the first six.

Conclusion

I haven’t watched the final two episodes, maybe it hits it stride again after the shocking death of the horses. We’ll see. I’d like to know from anyone else who watched the show, did you immediately detect the change in tone of the seventh episode?

The entire thing demonstrates to me the effort required to make a show great. There are so many moving parts. Acting, directing, editing, music, costumes, sets, and more. Making a great show requires everything be exceptional. Making a good show is a lot easier. Luck shows the difference.

Tom Liberman

Justified City Primeval is just a Punchy One-Liner

Posted on by
Punchy one-liner

I can review Justified City Primeval with a single word, ghastly. Just ghastly. I have a number of friends who rave about Justified although I haven’t seen it. I can only assume it has nothing in common with the action mess I just witnessed.

Normally I’d move along without bothering to write a review but the episode I just saw gives me an opportunity to discuss the trend of a punchy one-liner following an action sequence.

What is a Punchy One-Liner

I can’t say for absolute certain when the trend of punchy one-liners following an action sequence began. My personally memory is Roger Moore in James Bond. Sure, Sean Connery threw them out now and again but it was James Bond with Moore as the actor who really cemented the practice.

After an action sequence the protagonist must utter a witty or cutting one-line summation of what just happened. Fans liked it. Heck, I liked it. What happens when people like something? We get more of it. A lot more of it. More of it than this fellow can stomach.

Scenes Designed for the Punchy One-Liner

It’s one thing to have a punchy one-liner at the end of an action sequence but it’s entirely another to have scenes written for the sole-purpose of delivering that punchy one-liner.

One of the most egregious examples I can think is the Battle of Helms Deep in the Two Towers. The entire battle sequence seems to be merely a setup for a line about tossing a dwarf.

It’s gotten to the point where half the action scenes in a movie don’t forward the story in any way, they exist solely for the punchy one-liner the protagonist utters at the end. The audience laughs.

Scene Bloat

I’ve written about scene over story in the past so I won’t get too in depth here. The result of the desire to get in these quips is scene bloat. We get a variety of scenes that don’t serve the plot, don’t tell us about the characters, don’t do anything at all.

It’s not always the action sequences any more. Pretty much at the end of any scene it’s mandatory for a character to say something cutting, witty, or pithy about what just happened. The result is we get more and more scenes that don’t serve the story.

It’s important to understand there are runtime restraints. Every time a scene that doesn’t serve the story is inserted, that’s one less scene which might inform the audience, engage us, make us care. Instead, we are served a fleeting laugh at best.

An Entire Episode of Scenes with Almost no Story

Justified City Primeval is largely a series of scenes manufactured to deliver such lines. The kidnappers on the highway. The gas station robbery. The courtroom scenes. The attempt at comedy from the buffoons who want to kill the judge. The judge’s murder sequence, a shocking display of utter stupidity from beginning to end.

Conclusion

I’m not against a punchy one-liner if it makes sense and comes at the end of sequence that serves the story. What I see nowadays is not that. I have a funny one-liner. Let’s write a scene, who cares if it fits the story? Maybe it’s the writers. Maybe it’s the producers demanding it. I’m not sure but I know I’m not going to watch the second episode of Justified City Primeval.

Tom Liberman

Building Tension from The Knick to The Borgias

Posted on by
Building Tension

I recently started watching The Knick and The Borgias and I find the different way the two shows handle building tension to be quite interesting.

Both The Knick and The Borgias have stellar casts, high production values, and came out at roughly the same time. The Borgias ran for three seasons between 2011 and 2013 while The Knick had a two-season run between 2014 and 2015. The Knick received somewhat better reviews and audience approval and I think one of the reasons is building tension.

Now, to be fair, I’ve only seen two episodes of each show at this point so my opinion is definitely open to change. Let’s get started.

What is Building Tension?

At its simplest, building tension is the concept of unresolved conflict. Opposing forces work against each other without a resolution. The longer the conflict continues without a resolution, the greater the tension created. Such tension generally raises audience interest. We wonder who or what will prevail. What will be the resolution?

Naturally, it’s entirely possible to let tension build too long without a resolution, leading the audience to give up on a show where nothing is ever resolved.

Building Tension in The Borgias

I’ll not build any tension. The Borgias really doesn’t do much in the way of building tension. At least in the first two episodes. A problem arises and it’s almost immediately resolved. There is no tension building as we race from one crisis to the next. It’s handled better than in The Ark but not by a lot.

A good example is the first episode as Cardinal Borgia tries to bribe his way to the Papacy. The previous office holder dies, Borgia states his plan. He entreats his sons to make various bribes, and in the third ballot he is elected.

Here there is at least an attempt at creating a little tension by having events unfold over several scenes. Still, the entire thing took maybe twenty minutes of screen time from beginning to end. I personally see this plot taking up an entire season, if not the first two or three episodes.

A better example is the poisoning attempt on Pope Borgia. The assassination plot is not hinted at in any way. There is no tension at all. We find out about it and it’s resolved within five minutes. You’re going to poison my father; I’ll pay you more to poison the cardinal. Ok. Cardinal poisoned.

Another example is Borgia’s affair with Guilia. She confesses in a bawdy fashion, Borgia shows her the secret tunnel, she shows him her secret tunnel. Boom, bang, wham, or words to that effect. There was no building tension at all.

Basically, a problem is revealed and then solved almost immediately. I don’t have time to reflect, to wonder, to determine sides. It’s over almost before I realized it started.

Building Tension on The Knick

Less has happened in two episodes of The Knick than in twenty minutes of the Borgias. The main tension in the first two episodes of The Knick is whether or not Dr. Edwards will be accepted at the hospital. He is a black man and that is unacceptable to chief surgeon Dr. Thackery. He gives Edwards menial and useless tasks.

In the first episode there is a medical crisis and if this show was paced like the Borgias, Edwards would step forward and save the day. In this case, it is Thackery who shows off his prodigious skill impressing Edwards who wishes to learn from the master.

In the second episode there is another opportunity for Edwards to save the day as he recommends a procedure he practiced in Paris. Thackery shoots him down and the patient dies. There is a second patient with the same problem so Thackery dispatches assistants to find the journal in which the procedure is described. That’s where things are left after the second episode. Tension, consider yourself built.

By not resolving the problem immediately I’m left wondering what will happen. Will Thackery continue his stubborn ways or will he allow Edwards to assist, perhaps even perform, the surgery? Will the patient live or die? I don’t know but I’m engaged and in doubt as to the resolution.

By taking things slow The Knick builds tension.

This is also reflected in several other moments of conflict; the electrifying of the building, financial mismanagement, the need for more cadavers, the nun’s little side business. Problems are not revealed in their totality immediately. They build.

Conclusion

This difference in building tension is consciously decided. In The Borgias someone decided that fast-paced resolutions were better. The audience wants one crisis after the next and to have it neatly wrapped up in a speedy fashion.

Meanwhile, in The Knick, the opposite approach is taken. Let’s bring the crisis on slowly, foreshadow, hint, build.

Taking things slow isn’t always the best idea and things do have to move along, but the racing speed of The Borgias is not entertaining to me while I’m totally engrossed in The Knick.

Tom Liberman