Johnny Simmons

I have not been dedicating as much time to the small screen over the past year, I’ve been keeping up sporadically only with some of my favourites and I haven’t seen as much of many. It wasn’t quite the banner year for new shows like years past but there were a number of auspicious new additions. It’s a bit clichéd to single this particular one out, but I’d feel a little overly stoic if I conduct a 30 day TV meme without focusing on the little show that could – Glee. Anyone could tell you that Glee has its issues – that I’ll admit too. Others might tell you that Glee is unrealistic – that I think is missing the point. in the same way that Grease is an unrelenting parody (albeit, a little ineffective at times) of teenage stereotypes Glee – complete with its missteps on occasion – aims at the stereotypes of high school. I don't particularly care for the word best, I'll go with favourite.

A show like Glee is a bit of an anomaly on the small screen and I’m quite surprised at the cultural phenomenon it’s turned into. I’m a bit worried it’s heading to the ultimate letdown, for with all the hype and all the success it’s attained there seems no way to go but down. But it is what it is. Matthew Morisson’s attempts to revive the Glee Club at his high school while facing opposition from the dastardly Sue Sylvester present the crux (seemingly at least) of the show. But like so many school dramas, the importance of Glee rests on the shoulders of the student. I’ve had an affection for Lea Michele since hearing her on the cast recording for Spring Awakening and her bit part on Ragtime in the late nineties. Thus, perhaps I’m a little bit overly fond of her – even her role is more of a double edged sword than is obvious. It’s particularly difficult for anyone to make the ludicrousness of Rachel’s craziness works, and though Lea has her moments of doubt – she still stands out as my favourite of the cast. Not that she works alone though, the aforementioned Lynch and Morisson are important to the show, even if Morisson’s bland charm is hard to appreciate at times. But each cast member has their role and each fulfils it Amber Riley brings the sass with just the right amount of heart, Chris Colfer does a good job as the pocket gay, Mark Salling, Naya Rivera and Kevin McHale are just a fraction of Glee regulars contributing to the diversity of the show.

And then of course, there are the guests. No primetime show can match Will & Grace when it comes to excellent use of guests but Glee does a good job of using stars that are often forgotten – particularly those from the stage. It’s a part of its charm, and though it has its issues it’s nice to see the actors we probably wouldn’t be seeing on the big screen any time soon. Glee doesn’t exactly give us a fresh perspective on life or high school but week after week it (attempts to least) gives a little bit of joy. It’s not perfect, and I’m unsure on what will happen at the Emmy’s…but if I remember anything from the last television season it will be Glee.

This entry is part of my ongoing meme on TV Moments

After the jury began splitting over the goodness (or terribleness) of Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood I began wondering just what I was expecting when I listed it as my #4 most anticipated film of the year. sure, I’m enamoured with Miss Blanchett (who isn’t) and though I’d say that Crowe has been snubbed by awards too often in recent years I don’t particularly love him. True, I did read the original script for the then titled Nottingham but with all the changes made that was an entirely different beast. Naturally I was disappointed with the tepid response, thus my expectations were somewhat lowered. I expected less and watching Robin Hood I got less.

Half an hour into Robin Hood two things truck me. The first was more obvious, I was feeling bored. However, more than this, I found myself remembering a book on screenwriting I’d read a few years ago. Sid Field had said that it’s always good to have a back-story to your screenplay so you’d know what happened to the characters just before the credits roll. She went on to say that sometimes writers like their back-stories so much they end up using it as part of the screenplay. Herein lies one of Robin Hood’s earliest issues. Screenwriter Brian Helgeland seems to be altogether too fond of his work and he chooses to open the movie forty minutes before it actually begins. It’s not that the running time is outrageous, but it feels like a chore. Note, I watched this the same day as the 190 minute Doctor Zhivago (my review), and I didn’t look at my watch once during that one. Even more he has a tendency to write some blandly expository dialogue that even Cate Blanchett (she thrives on those exposition passages usually) falters at times. It’s actually what does in Oscar Isaac who I was impressed with in Agora. Ridley Scott, or Helgeland or maybe Isaac himself seem so enamoured with making John a lascivious villain that he spends half the film shouting inane lines in a VERY LOUD VOICE. Pass.

And yet, don’t think I’m trashing Robin Hood because as it picks up I find myself charmed by its machinations. I’ve heard more than a few persons recognise Scott’s skill with battles, but I’d have preferred if he’d tried to make Robin Hood an introspective character study than an amalgamation of what we’ve seen before. The entire point of rebooting the series depends on it offering something different. Hence, it’s the new portrayal of Maid Marian that stands out in this incarnation. Yes, I am unfairly biased to Cate. It is what it is, but it’s a register that I like her in. She’s not as irrepressible as Kate or formidable as Elizabeth, but the toned down but nonetheless strong woman is something she plays excellently. It’s not her best, by any means, but her decision to show bits of emotion at the strangest parts turns her Marian into the most realistic portrayal of the film. Sure, it ends with a somewhat misguided monologue from her but the almost chaste attraction between Hood and Marian work. Marian is past her prime, and more than a heated romance she wants a man she can finally depend on and stand by. Thus Ridley’s decision, to make it less about the physical and more about the intellectual, works for me.

            

More than any film Robin Hood thrives with the promise of what could have been…but I’ll put the possibilities out of my mind. Robin Hood is imperfect, but in its own way it was divertingly charming. Certainly not the comeback Scott and Crowe were looking for, and after a year and a half without Cate I’m unsatisfied. Still, they could do worse. I came in expecting less, but I didn't get nothing.

              

Crime drama procedurals are really a dime a dozen. Yet, when I think of show that more people should pay attention to I can't help but gravitate to a particular show about a police from Georgia who arrives in Los Angeles to deal with crime head on. The Closer is a show that grew from one I liked to one I can't help but love and considering that it's "merely" a crime drama, you may wonder...what makes it worth seeing? Good question. Two words - Kyra Sedgwick.

At this moment Ms. Sedgwick has earned four consecutive nominations for Best Actress in A Drama at the Emmy's. She had the misfortune to  lose to Mariska Hargitay of that dreaded crime show in her first year - a year where she was head and shoulders above the competition. Sedgwick has continued turning out excellent performances, but I'm unsure who's watching. Still the vieweriship of 5ML per season is not horrible, but it deserves better because The Closer is more than just a run of the mill show focusing on crimes week after week. It fails to fall  into the trap that so many procedurals do. The Closer has a cast of "people" and not "types".

Week after week the show's main cast are more interesting than the guests and that's what makes The Closer special. It's supposed to be like that. We're invested in the machinations of Brenda and Fritz. We like to see her fighting with J.K. Simmons' perfectly played Assistant Chief Pope. Sometimes it seems The Closer even forgets that its a crime procedural and not a straight drama - and it's all for the better. I don't know if Kyra will ever get that Emmy it deserves, I don't know if this upcoming sixth season will be its last. But I do know that I love The Closer, and chances are you might too.

I love seeing sibling machinations on the screen. There’s something decidedly charming in seeing sturdy bouts of filial love and especially when that bond is between sister and sister. It’s something that pits actress against actress and often results in good performances all around. So today we're catering to the ladies - But what makes a good sisterly pairing? Well, obviously, they have to love each other – that’s a bit of prerequisite, so of course no inclusions of those Dubois women…few sisterly pairing are as true, and loving as these five that follow – well, I can’t think of any…

            

There are really three Dashwood sisters in Sense & Sensibility, but only two of them get descriptive adjectives to their name. Sure, Emma Thompson’s age acts against the very reason for Austen’s title, but she’s a good enough actress to overcome whatever her age cannot. Sure, sometimes Marianne comes off as undeserving of her sister’s patience, but they do look out for each other. Like a clever diversion on a piano to prevent the embarrassment of Elinor and the dedication Elinor in turn pays to a sick Marianne. Dedication to sisterhood. 

           

Crimes of the Heart is such a forgotten one, but with Diane Keaton, Jessica Lange and Sissy Spaceck I remember it. A sister of Best Actress Oscar winners, what can be better? Sure one of them is washed up, one's suicidal and one's "never been kissed" but the chemistry these three women have make me wonder this film isn't more remembered.

                

It’s one thing ensuring two sisters match the truth of an Austen novel, but it’s so much more difficult when it’s five. How does Joe Wright accomplish it? Well Mary is the odd one out, and is often alone. Eliza and Jane gravitate to each other as do Lydia and Kitty so we have the older pair and the younger pair. But, even more, moments when they must combine are just as honest. The film’s beginning with the five of them, and their fishwife mother, haranguing their father about Miss Bingley is handled nicely. Yes, the strongest moments of the film come when Rosamund and Keira interact – they are so very lovely together. But Wright tries to make each one have their moment, and for the most part, he succeeds.

   

Of course this list cannot be made without some incarnation of the March sisters. Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy are memorable characters of literature and cinema and the 1932 incarnation is the most memorable. Kate stars as a role that seems tailor made for her - that of the irrepressible Jo. Joan Bennett, Jean Parker and Frances Dee round out the foursome as Amy, Beth and Meg. It's a pity none of the actresses went on to fame other than Kate, and it's a pity that the fair but uninspired 1994 version is remembered more. Still, the March Girls are the epitome of sisterly affection.

   

Howards End is a delight, and more than anything else the reason for its beauty lies in the chemistry between Helena Bonham Carter and Emma Thompson. Sure, they have a brother, but Tibby is incidental. It’s weird, considering the future controversy between these two women and a certain Shakespeare fanatic, but the bond these two seem to share is striking. Sure, halfway through the film they part ways, temporarily, but it doesn’t make the bond tenuous, they’re reunited at the end because the Schlegel girls know something about familial ties. It’s a unity that Ivory handles wonderfully. They are as different as night and day and of course this is why they’re so necessary to each other.

                      

Television is a dastardly mistress. The existence of a show is ever more ephemeral than that of a film, especially in a time when few shows are in demand on DVD and only a select few are lucky enough to be aired after their time has expired. If a show doesn’t go completely all out or suffice to a bland, generic niche in its first few episodes the dreaded c word emanates – cancelled. In the wake of the 2007-2008’s writer’s strike a marvellous new show was put on hold. It reappeared half a year later, even more innovative than before. I suppose, though, in a way it was ahead of its time and it was cancelled with only 24 episodes in two seasons. Such was the story of last decade’s comedic masterpiece Pushing Daisies.

Pushing Daisies was – not by coincidence, I’m sure, just like the euphemism from which its title derives. What is the phrase pushing up daisies if not a whimsical and perhaps irreverent title given to the dead. And it’s this same whimsicalness which is inherent in the atypical hilarity, blindingly bubbly colour palette and ferociously original concept of the show. The story…? A young boy realises he has the inexplicable gift of reviving dead things, but like all gifts it comes with stipulations. If he allows the undead thing, or person, to live for more than one minute something of similar “life value” dies (a man for a man, a flower for a flower, an animal for animal). He revives his dead dog while a bird falls dead; he revives his mother after a heart attack precipitating the death of his childhood sweetheart’s father. What Ned does not know is that if he touches the revived again they die again – permanently. Thus, a good night kiss from his mother renders her dead eternally. Ned becomes a pie maker and happens upon his childhood sweetheart – dead. He revives after some emotional conflict, and therein lays the crux of one of the show’s main conflicts. Chuck and Ned are in love, but alas, cannot touch.

Pushing Daisies does something special. Each episode surrounds the dead and their story, yet each episode leaves you with convinced of the joy in life. It balances the dark (and perhaps more realistic) overtures of disaster in the world with a blind faith and glee that is completely charming. I don’t know why Pushing Daisies met such a woeful end. Can a show be too good for the public? I never know why more weren’t watching, I don’t know why ABC performed one of its most cruelly inane acts. But cancelled it is. Nonetheless, Pushing Daisies is a marvel and I’ll soon be buying it on DVD. Chances are you haven’t seen it.

ometimes, even I’m confused as to why I call some directors my favourites. Case in point – David Lean. Sometimes, I think I’m more besotted with the idea of David Lean that David Lean himself. Granted, I’ve never seen The Bridge on the River Kwai (which is loathsome, I know - stop judging me). Lawrence of Arabia is a technical marvel – but one which I do not love. A Passage to India is an excellent adaptation, but both it and its source leave me confused and Ryan’s Daughter is better left unremembered. It is only the oft forgotten Summertime (the Kate H. vehicle) and his other tale of lost love that I cite as necessities of my cinematic favourites. And yet, even though I would readily mention Doctor Zhivago as a favourite of mine I never feel particularly happy as I watch. Sure, it’s a tragedy – but perhaps it’s the fact that despite its length Doctor Zhivago is steadily on its way to a tragic ending that cannot be averted.

                       

On the DVD for Doctor Zhivago Omar Sharif (what a talented man) spoke of it being one of the last epics from MGM, and it sure is a good way to go out because it certainly is epic. The film is based on Boris Pasternak's novel of the same name about a tale of tragic love in Russia. The scope of the film is daunting and the pace is definitely not rushed. Yet, there is nothing in Doctor Zhivago I’d call extraneous. David Lean is such a personal director; every shot is filled with such intimacy – the man knew how to excel in technicalities. But Doctor Zhivago is not devoid of emotion. In fact, the story’s emotional appeal is probably its ace. True, the basic story is rather simple – a love triangle between Sharif, Julie Christie and Geraldine Chaplin. But it’s not typical in the least. It’s less concerned with the machinations of the triangle and more interested in the fate of the other characters. And it’s a strongpoint of the film. In addition to the excellent threesome, we have Tom Courtenay, Alec Guinness, Rod Steiger and Ralph Richardson. True, with the most screen time Sharif comes across as strongest (what a shame he was ignored by the Academy) but Lean wants everyone to have their time to shine – and with so much time on his hands, he manages to do so.

Most people probably know of Doctor Zhivago through its score, arguably the most popular film score – and really it is that good. It accents the film with a bittersweet tone that runs throughout, and it’s the same way with the actual film. If I really sit down and ponder on it, Doctor Zhivago is really quite depressing – two important deaths occur within the space of five minutes (one is not even on screen) and the thing we love called closure is never really forthcoming. In fact, after three hours of waiting I can understand why some would be less than pleased at the outcome of the "romance". But Lean is not as interested in giving us a “movie” as much as he wants to give us glimpses into the lives of people he treats with such honesty I wouldn’t deny them as authentic humans despite their obvious artificiality (they are literary characters, alone). I’m rarely moved to watch it in its entirety (though doing so last Friday was quite satisfying). But, like I remember it in spots, I think of lovely moments within the tragedy of Doctor Zhivago and I’m content. Like Julie Christie’s loveliness in a red dress, Omar Sharif’s son in a small role, an adlibbed slap from Rod Steiger, or a look of happiness as Sharif spots someone important while on a train. True – everything is leading up to that inevitable decisive tragedy – but I still think of Doctor Zhivago as a near perfect piece of art. It’s not any less worthy because it’s not pleasing on first glance. Below the surface there’s much to appreciate. It appears at #25 on my list of favourite films, for though it confuses me at the end of the day I know "...it is a gift..."

Listen to a sample of the score...