The Newsroom is a disaster

I usually give a series a few episodes before commenting, posting, or giving up, but for the HBO series The Newsroom I will make an exception because nothing could get me to possibly watch another episode. There's plenty of bad, horrible TV out there - but at least no one expects much from Real Housewives or Jersey Shore or whatever, but what makes The Newsroom so awful is, among many other things, its incredible pretension - the preachings of the characters, the self-righteousness of its politics and of its sense of the mission of a newsroom, and of course all the hype surrounding it - HBO, Aaron Sorkin, wow, that's almost like Shakespeare-Globe theater... but when you compare it to the Sopranos or The Wire or even lesser HBO series like, I don't know, Treme or Deadwood, which I didn't love but at least could accept as worthy of their own ambitions, The Newsroom is a mutant. First of all, there is not a single line of dialogue in the entire movie that was ever said by a human being other than a screenwriter reading his text aloud. This is obvious from the first post-credit sequence of a couple vainly arguing about when he would meet her parents while standing right beside the desk of a fellow employee who comments wryly on their witticisms and quips. This never ever happens. Now I don't mind a comedy that includes lots of quips and quirks and isn't exactly realistic - but a comedy, such as say Modern Family, or even Seinfeld, first succeeds because of its feeling of verisimilitude, also our recognition of the characters as both types and individuals, and third because of a certain uplifting comic sensibility - Newsroom has none of the above, and of course no it's not trying to be a comedy. Yet it's as realistic a vision of a newsroom as Ally McBeal was of a corporate law firm. At least AMcB knew it was an entertainment - but this clunker is larded with Sorkin speeches, such as Jeff Daniels's lengthy harangue about why America is not the greatest country - reeling off a dizzying # of statistics - again, not only is the dialogue idiotic in this show but the monologues are even worse. Some of this I could put aside if Sorkin had even the slightest hint of the culture of a newsroom (BTW, though I never warmed to the West Wing, I did like Sorkin's Social Network - that, he seemed to get right, and if there's anyone who speaks like he writes it may be the high-tech Mensa nerds of programming) - but as to the newsroom in The Newsroom, well, if you can believe, just to cite one of many examples, that two minutes after there's an AP bulletin about an oil rig fire in the Gulf, one of the producers - first day on the new job no less! - gets a call from his college roommate who's in meetings w/ BP and who's telling him they can't cap this fire (plus for good measure another call from his sister! who just happens to explain to him the geology of an underground spill) - just ask yourself for one second why anyone working for BP would make that call in two minutes to a reporter? The idiocies go on throughout the entire broadcast as they put together what would be months of investigative reporting in about 10 minutes during a live broadcast. Well, there may be worse shows on TV - but few worse ones on HBO for sure. For a good example, BTW,  of a fine series about a TV newsroom - which, actually, check out the British series The Hour.

Two reasons why Beneath the Candelabra received Emmy nominations

I can tell you in a few words why the HBO movie Beneath the Candelabra has received several Emmy nominations. First, TV industry types love it when major movie starts deign to work in their medium, so the casting of Matt Damon and Michael Douglas in this Liberace biopic, as told from the POV of his "special assistant," that is, his boy toy from the late 70s. Second, TV (and movie) industry types love "bold" casting and actors who take risks - and nothing is more bold (they suppose) than straight actors taking on gay roles and actually making out with and coming onto each other. So seeing Douglas and Damon kissing and caressing shows us how daring these two guys are and how groundbreaking this movie is - when in fact it's not, particularly. It's by no means a terrible movie, but it's by no means great, either. The title tells it all - such a fake come-on, as if we're at last getting an inside look at Liberace the man. But to me that would be interesting if and only if it surprised me with something, showed me something I didn't expect: like what if L. was a Harley-riding tough guy into babes and the gay thing was all an act for the fans? Or what if he hated all the decor and clutter? Or if he was a leftist activist really into Sartre? No, what this movie shows is that Liberace was a campy character with an eye for extravagant design, a true narcissist and egotist who could be kind at times but who thought nothing of using his wealth and eminence to basically by a harem of servants and a boy-toy piece of arm candy. He liked to think he was doing great favors for those whom he more or less owned - and in many ways he was generous - but he wouldn't or couldn't see that he was controlling and in some ways ruining the lives of those he possessed. In other words, despite his love for his mother, or because of it, he could truly love none other than himself. Does any of this surprise you? Me neither. The movie's kind of fun to look at - the art director really went to town re-creating L's domestic extravagance - and the acting and all is fine - though I had little interest in L. himself, the movie held my attention for an hour or so, but by that point there was nothing more I wanted or need to see or to know. I hear they closed the Liberace Museum in Las Vegas; a shame - that, I probably would have wanted to see.

Definition of eternity? Waiting for Blu-ray log on - and 5 films I'd recommend from 2013

I certainly did not give the Israeli documentary The Gatekeepers a fair trial - I was supertired and fell asleep for a while; when I wanted to pick up and watch it again, turned blue-ray back on, and of course am at the beginning of the long sequence of trailers - Sony Pictures is absolutely the worst offender - 15 minutes of trailers is like an eternity (after the 5 minute blu-ray log in) - we have geniuses who can put a device in our pocket that can navigate us around the entire planet but no one can figure out how to skip over the ads at the beginning of a DVD? Anyway, The Gatekeepers might be a great movie for someone who closely follows Israeli politics, but since I knew nothing about the men being interviewed and little about the various historical events alluded to, the film did not contain for me any great revelations: I have always assumed that the Israeli secret police is ruthless, efficient, amoral, and totally effective - and what choice do the Israelis have, despite the blunders of the Begin era and the idiotic settling of the West Bank - they are still surrounded by enemies, who are supported by Arab thug fake princes who want nothing more than for their impoverished and oppressed masses to blame it all on the Jews. A hopeless situation, it seems - but despite all that not a very gripping movie (Israelis might feel the same way about the similar American film, The Fog of War, which I found moving and troubling). So with that said, I will take a moment to respond to query from friend PM: how many movies to I see a year? To date this year, it's 31, so I can estimate about 60 a year, which to me doesn't seem like a lot, not even enough, considering all the great ones huddled helplessly toward the bottom of my Q. And then PM asks, so what would I recommend? I do a 10 best at the end of the year, and looking now at the half-way point is not exactly a prediction of the top 5 on my list - there are some from that I saw during the first half of the year that will make my best list but I won't necessarily recommend to all - classics and unconventional films, for the most part. But for 5 films I've seen this year I'd recommend to general movie-goers, shooting for some variety in the mix:

Much Ado About Nothing - best Sh. adaptation I've ever seen, maybe
Zero Dark Thirty - an excellent thriller that feels almost like a you-are-there documentary
The Loneliest Planet - beautiful to look at and though slow at times very real and vivid about human relationships, a very honest film that will surprise you. Almost totally unknown and unwatched I think.
Searching for Sugarman - a terrific documentary about a lost, legendary rock musician, a story about the music industry and about fame and reputation - great
Best ExoticMarigold Hotel - not my kind of movie, but as good as it gets for this type of feel-good comedy of manners about mature adults

The beginning of the modern age: Parade's End

The HBO 5-part mini-series Parade's End is excellent all the way through - the first three parts mostly covering volume 1 of the Ford Madox Ford quartet, as the characters engage in various domestic disputes and as the threat of war looms, and the last two parts cover, I believe, material in the final 3 volumes - in any case, what we see in the last two parts of the miniseries is Tietjens returning to the front lines, after his brief return to England to recover from shell shock, and in effect finding himself through his service as a soldier - and knowing that when he returns to London (in part 5) that he can never return to his horrible marriage to Sylvia (the excellent Rebecca Hall) but must break convention and live with his mistress - it seems their passion has been chaste and from afar - the much younger Valentine Wannop. Essentially, what Ford, and this series - with a really smart and taut script by Tom Stoppard and crisp direction by Susanna White - don't know anything about her) - are able to do is show the growth and development of the main character, moving from a self-righteous somewhat foppish, idealistic young English government official to a worldly, somewhat cynical and mistrustful, far more modern - i.e., breaking free to a degree from the class structure and conventions - adult - and this as a metaphor for the growth and changes of the psyche and social structure of the entire nation, after enduring the fear and misery of the war and rising triumphant. There's still class structure of course - but the closing scenes, of Tietjens finding comfort and well-being not in his huge estate or with his snobbish wife but with the leftist Valentine and with his army buddies in his barely furnished flat - is a hopeful metaphor or analogue to the changes that would slowly transform the culture over the course of the century. In other words, it's about the opening of the modern age - as seen through sexuality, politics, and social class. The production values, as noted in earlier post, are what we have come to expect from BBC shows - but the last two parts are especially strong in depiction of trench warfare, with explosives all around and bullets whizzing and the colonel in charge gone completely insane. The series, great as it is, should not replace reading the novels - I will go back to them - but it's something like a primer to help readers follow the very complex web that Ford wove: his novels are part of the modern-fiction era, something like Woolf (though less interior, more political) and difficult at first go - the fiction itself is an example in style of the movement the novels are meant to depict - moving away from convention and toward a new, more open and free and challenging form of literary (and socio-political) expression.

A rare case in which you should see the film (miniseries) first: Parade's End

Readers of my other blog, elliotsreading, may know that I was both impressed with and frustrated by Ford Madox Ford's Parade's End - finding it really smart and full of complex social issues and at times beautifully written but also extremely challenging, with its fragmented and asynchronous narrative and its willful complete lack of contextual narration - we just find ourselves with character, in a scene of a locale, and only over time do we come to understand who's speaking, what his or her relationship is to other characters, etc. - also we get little or no explanatory passages, which is especially difficult for an American reader not familiar w/ English party politics - particularly of a century ago. HBO miniseries to the rescue - I'm a little scornful of those who see the film and skip the book, and in fact always make a point of reading first if I plan to do both genres - film is so more vivid in its impact that it seems once we've seen the work cinematically it is impossible to envision the characters other than as those who played the parts. But in this case - I recommend seeing the miniseries first - I will now, with greater confidence and more sure bearings, at some point return and read the 2nd through 4th volumes of the quartet. I didn't think this work could translate so well, but the brilliant Tom Stoppard makes a great 5-hour script out of about 1,000 dense pages. The series as all the period details and vivid, rich textures - as well as highly pro acting, that we've come to take for granted from BBC productions. The lead is maybe a little more handsome and "cleaned up" than he ought to be, and the miniseries maybe a little more overtly sexual than the book, which did a lot by implication rather than depiction. But some scenes work way better in the miniseries - trimming extensive dialogue down to a few salient points, for ex the long conversation in Germany w/ the priest handled deftly in one short scene. My only quibble is the casting of Valentine Wannop - the actress in the role is excellent and very winning but she looks far, far too young and innocent for the part, in my view, and I'm constantly thinking that Tietjens is trying to have sex with a teenage girl (she's supposed to be 24 I think). McMaster is suitably unctuous, and Rebecca Hall as Mrs. T. is perfect - every word drips venom. Watched first 3 parts, 2 to go.

Mad Men meets Latin American politics: No

Pablo Larrain's film No is, or seems to be, based closely on real-life events - surrounding the 1983 (?) plebiscite that peacefully deposed Pinochet from power in Chile; film focuses on a young ad creative director in a Chilean agency, Rene (played very well by Bernal, who improves every movie he's in) - starts with his presenting an ad he's developed for a new cola, called Free (some irony there of course), which he pitches to clients as edgy and daring (maybe it was, circa 1980, time of setting) - and then he's called away to meet with a new potential client: the representative of the leftist coalition organizing for the plebiscite. Chileans apparently were asked to vote simply Yes (keep Pinochet in power) or No (oust him). Time for ads was strictly allotted and controlled - by Pinochet and his henchmen. Everyone figured the whole vote was a fraud, meant to give a thin veneer of legitimacy to Pinochet. What happens - whether it adhere closely to the truth or not - is interesting, at least as a movie: Rene is the only one who thinks they can develop an ad campaign that will actually win, and comes up with a somewhat corny but spirited pitch involving songs mocking Pinochet and some light comedy. Some of the leftists storm out - they believe there is no way to win the election, and the left should use the opportunity to present their views and their indictment of P. Rene prevails - and, ultimately, triumphs - to the surprise of all. But not without a lot of risk - the P. forces threaten his family, vandalize his property, etc. And there's a pretty nasty street fight, at which R. is at some risk. I'm guessing it's for movie purposes only but he has a son and girlfriend also placed at risk - that's a weaker element of the plot. Movie alternates between meetings of the No and Yes brain trusts, and of course they are 180 degrees different. The amazing thing is not so much that No succeeded but the P. let that happen, let the results stand. I'm sure it's a simplification of history - but a pretty good drama that informs us, or at least me, about a period I knew little about (using archival footage, too - including a weird picture of Kissinger beaming at Pinochet). As I'm sure others have noted, this is a unique depiction of Latin American politics, kind of Mad Men meets Battle of Chile, with a touch of The Selling of the President, as well (esp. when Pinochet's forces talk about getting him out of uniform, making him more friendly, taking advantage of his warm smile! - and come up with a stiff and stilted video of P. kissing schoolchildren while a chorus sings and soldiers stand - as Nazi as you can imagine).

Whedon's Much Ado (2013): The best contemporary version you'll ever see

I'm not sure if Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing is or will be the definitive version of this Shakespeare play for our time, but I am sure that it's the best contemporary adaptation of the play you're ever likely to see and it's one of the most likable and credible presentations of this play in which, by and large, the characters are superficially brilliant but hollow at the core (the "nothing" of the title). The two leads, Beatrice and Benedick, are so smart and funny that it's easy to think of them as the whole show - and to forget or ignore that most of the other characters behave in absolutely despicable if not idiotic ways: renouncing a bride at the altar because you think you've seen her having a tryst with another guy, engaging in some ludicrous scheme of pretending the bride (Hero) is dead and coaxing her betrothed (Claudio) to marry her "cousin" sight unseen... and so forth - nobody behaves this way. So how to make it credible? And, if you're to have a contemporary version of the play, how do you deal with the setting - soldiers coming back from a peaceful little war in which few died "and none of name"? Whedon has the brilliant idea of setting this on a SoCal estate and making it a movie about a very well-heeled gang of mobsters - the returning "soldiers" obviously just cleaned up some kind of mess with a rival gang in another state, and now come in to report to the head of the clan. Everyone's well dressed and well spoken - this is not the Sopranos, but a much smoother, slicker mob scene - and everything takes off from there. The two leads, esp Amy Acker as Beatrice, are completely winning; Dogberry, understated rather than over the top, by far the funniest I have ever seen - thanks also to his fellow "constables," a bumbling local police force (except for the woman) in way over their heads when dealing with the big-shots. Great use of interior space in the sprawling Santa Monica home (I'm told the director's actual home), and excellent score, including two songs using Sh. lyrics. The secondary characters all are fine, very much looking the part - young stars on the rise, stoner on the fringe, etc. ; casting Conrade (villain Don John's sidekick) as a "babe" is really a good decision. This production isn't notable for any single line delivery - though one very fine clip occurs when Claudio says he will marry the "cousin" unseen, even if she were "an Ethiope" - and in that moment we see in the background, among the wedding guests, a young black woman - just for one second, but great - showing Claudio's shallowness right there. In fact, Claudio becomes a more important character here than he usually is - has some great lines, and we really see the callowness of his behavior throughout. The great production from the 1970s with Sam Waterston's Benedick still remains for me the gold standard - who can ever forget "Will you have me, lady?" or "Kill Claudio" or "We'll have dancing afterwards" - but this contemporary Much Ado brings the play into our day and time better than any before - and likely any ever.