Night-Tinted Glasses

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Review)

2011-12-08T23:26:00.000-08:00

Spoilers Ahoy!

Tomas Alfredson directed one of the finest vampire films of all time--Let The Right One In. After that, I expected great things. Let us get one thing out of the way right now--he did not disappoint.

It helps that he chose a truly stellar cast with which to bring John Le Carre's spy drama to the screen. Many of you may have seen the BBC miniseries starring Sir Alec Guiness. Those who have not, should! But don't forget to watch this version as well. And let yourself be amazed, particularly by Gary Oldman as the anti-James Bond. George Smiley, rather than a dashing womanizer excellent at all form of death and mayhem, is a calm professor type, a detective of sorts who sifts through all the tedious details to find the treasure. Rather than good with women, George has an extremely troubled marriage--yet one can see in Oldman's eyes how much he genuinely loves her, and how in giving himself to that vulnerability he ends up hurt. Yet it is also what makes him worthy of victory. Not his the courage of the man who doesn't give a damn. Quite the opposite!

All this emerges as part of an intricate web, one distilled from a fairly heft novel into two hours with considerable skill and success. Not a movement ends up wasted. Every detail matters, and we quickly learn that lesson. One of my favorite little bits from early on is when George is in a car with two other men, and a bee. They try to swat the bee away. George, he just watches it. Then, as it gets near the window, he opens that window to let it go. At the time, I was most impressed with his calm intelligence. Later, I recognized a man fundamentally good--and like any such man in a trade that consists of deceit and manipulation, conflicted by it all. Yet...brilliant. Later in the film he has to lie to someone, a lie utterly necessary, in some ways kind, but also ruthless. We could see him bleed a little bit in telling that lie. But he did it.

The details. I cannot emphasize not only how important they are in this tale, but how skillfully we are drawn to notice them! At a certain point I found myself noticing a man's tie. The color. The pattern. Turned out there was a clue in there.

Likewise, simple action of train tracks shifting intercut with Gary Oldman's face told us so much! Bravo!

Essentially, the story (set in the 1970s, right in the heart of the Cold War) tells of an investigation of a "mole" or double agent somewhere at the top of British Intelligence, aka The Circus (its hq is in Piccadilly Circus). The title refers to codenames given the suspects, based on an old nursery rhyme: Tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor, rich man, poor man, beggarman, thief. Suspicion of such a thing is dismissed as absurd fantasy. But then a bit of evidence brings former Deputy Director of the Circus George Smiley out of forced retirement. He's given a mission by those above and outside the Circus--find the truth. And he does, knowing one of four men must be a traitor. One of them is now the head of the service. Another once had an affair with George's wife. Many and sad are the betrayals in this story. Wonderful and fascinating are George Smiley's efforts to learn the truth, among other things by letting people lie to him then spotting it. All the while, lurking deep in the background, is the legendary Soviet Spymaster known as Karla--a brilliant fanatic whom George met once, many years ago.

The miniseries was more subtle in some ways, but the film comes across as clearer. Beneath the surface of all this remains the beating of human hearts, and therein lies the tragedy of it all. The power.

And in a way a little weakness. I wasn't surprised upon learning the identity of the traitor. Then again, I already knew. But really, who else could it have been? Along those lines, I will say the magnificent Ciaran Hinds was criminally underused. Which happens sometimes with a really fine actor ends up in a supporting role. Same thing happened to him in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Benedict Cumberbatch does an excellent job in a meatier role, elevated to rather more than he is in the book, a tragic figure in his own right. In fact, that brings up what makes TTSS so effective and so different from stuff like Mission Impossible or the Bourne movies. People in this film cry. They have reason to. And some of them weep without shedding a single tear.

Some folks will mutter about "nothing happens" or won't follow be able to follow the story. Their loss, really. I predict plenty of Oscar buzz for this film. Among other things I feel greater and greater excitement at seeing more of Alfredson's work.

Polish Carmilla (Part of Blog Tour)

2011-09-12T08:00:00.000-07:00

Today begins The Annotated Carmilla Blog Tour, in which the subject matter of my book The Annotated Carmilla shall be addressed all over the web. You are invited. Also, you are invited to watch this, the uber-rare Polish Television adaptation of Le Fanu's Carmilla. Since it is unlisted and will be deleted come the end of the blog tour (October 12, 2011) here may be your only chance to see this flick (other websites in the blog tour are listed below):

The Facebook Page of the Tour
Vampires.com
Mystical Book Blog Tours
Chastity's Romance News
Night Tinted Glasses
Search for the Lure
Dustin Bishop
Suburban Vampire
The Graveyard (the Lair of Gary James)
The Ramblins of Amy
A Paranormal Lover's Point of View
Eventide Envisions
Kay Dee Royal - Paranormal & Erotica Romance Musings

Dream (Super) Team

2011-09-03T13:26:00.000-07:00

Forgive the wild and crazee speculation...

Many may not be aware of this, but DC Comics is in the process of re-booting their entire line. That's right, decades of continuity tossed out the door in favor of a fresh start. All characters and back stories have been re-imagined, starting over from scratch (and in the process wiggling out from under a lifetime of convoluted continuity). Marvel Comics did something similar awhile back, creating an alternate line dubbed Ultimate Marvel for purposes of exploring how things might have gone differently. Marketing ploy? Definitely! But also, an attempt to re-energize a creative world, make characters more fresh, experiment with ideas and styles.

But I've decided to let my own imagination run loose, picking and choosing from a variety of different sources my own dream team of superheroes! Pure self indulgence! I know! But FUN! So without further ado allow me to introduce the mighty Earthguard!

First, Nite Owl from the graphic novel and motion picture Watchmen. Many who first saw this character in the movie trailer saw what one commentator called "a weak sauce Batman." True, the overall look of this man harkens back to the Dark Knight, and in terms of fighting skills he's easily the equal of Bruce Wayne. Likewise, he's a gadget man, but not as elaborately as the Caped Crusader. In fact, Nite Owl began as a version of the Blue Beetle, which most obviously shows in his flying craft "Archie" (short for Achimedes). Yet this hero evolved into very much himself, the son of a wealthy corporate lawyer with no interest in following in any parental footsteps. Rather, he loved the world of myth, of legendary heroes and how they still live in us with our reaction to this world. Case in point--the original Nite Owl! Daniel Dreiberg had a serious case of hero worship with the beat cop who donned a mask in the 1930s to defend citizens from gangsters in the middle of the Great Depression. When Hollis Mason, the first Nite Owl, unmasked himself and wrote his memoirs, Daniel found his calling. Longing to live in an age of heroes, he decided to become one, taking on the mantle of a modern version. Yet he remained, as one person put it, "the most human super hero," someone never quite sure of the answers (and thus less likely to commit atrocities in the name of an ideal). His compassion and loyalty were never more shown than at the end of Watchmen, when he alone wept at the death of a his tormented almost-friend, the borderline sociopath Rorschach.

Second, Vampirella! Her origins remain obscure, and in my own mind remain utterly mysterious (because the one given her at first frankly made not a lick of sense and has been ret-conned more than a couple of times). Essentially, she is a vampire, but one without a past. She cannot recall a time when she was not a vampire, yet her memories do not go that far back. Certainly this world and its people seem alien to her. Yet although instinct tells her to see us as nothing but food, she refused. Desperately seeking to control her thirst, she makes it her task to combat and defeat several mystical forces of pure evil. One of these is the dread demon CHAOS who plans to mate with Vampirella, allowing it to manifest in this world. Another longtime foe is none of than Count Dracula! Yet for all that, Vampirella in many ways remains a young woman just trying to get by. Her "secret identity" is a magician's assistant to a faded but kindly old stage illusionist named Pendragon. One can see the brilliant Nite Owl developing a blood substitute for her (as was done in the comics, predating True Blood by decades!)--the man of science fighting along side this lady of mystic mystery and menace,

Next up, Invincible from Image Comics. A mere teenager, Mark Sebastian Grayson is also the son of Omni-Man, a member of a super-powered race who came to Earth and became one of the premiere heroes of the age, marrying in the process. Then one day he murdered nearly every other member of the world's greatest super-powered team (pretty much identifiable as Batman, Wonder Woman, the Flash, Aquaman, etc.). Turns out his people were preparing an invasion, with him as an advance scout. But his son refused to accompany him offworld, vowing to defend his world from his father's people. Talk about issues. Talk about a burden! Mark faces up to that challenge with a smartass attitude and an dogged determination to do the right thing. Fortunately, he has the kind of powers that stand him in good stead as he slowly learns how to be a successful defender of humanity--hyperspeed, extreme strength, incredibly high endurance, and the power of flight. Although the youngest member of the team by far, in terms of raw ability he is likely the single most powerful person not only among them but possibly on Earth.

Green Arrow from DC Comics began as essentially a retread of Batman--wealthy playboy who fights crime in his spare time. Over time, though, that changed. Methinks maybe the reason for that is mostly his motivation. Unlike Bruce Wayne, Oliver Queen suffered no childhood tragedy. He had no issues to work out. Rather, as his entire life shows, he was a born adventurer -- who happened to be an Olympic level archer (literally--he has gold medals). He found his bliss, as it were, going out and fighting the good fight. Along the way, he enjoyed quite a few non-masked adventures including a shipwreck and more than a few love affairs. Methinks he holds the record for superhero with the most illegitimate children (be fair--upon finding them he generally tried his best to be a good dad). An older man (he's probably the oldest person in this team, with the possible exception of Vampirella), his experience translates into cunning. Green Arrow hardly ever uses 'stunt' arrows. Doesn't need 'em! Atypically, he also has a clear political agenda, being an advocate of the downtrodden with plenty of contempt aimed at the corrupt or simply callous of his own class. He'd be something of a father figure for Invincible, as well as (to some extent) Nite Owl. Maybe. He'd love to flirt with Vampirella, but be ever ready to pierce her heart with a wooden shaft ... just in case.

Finally, I would include Storm of Marvel's The X-Men. Several reasons, some technical. One is that her powers make her unique -- essentially psychic control of the weather (coupled with skills learned as a thief in the streets of Cairo). For another, she is what the others of this team are not--a natural Leader. And she has points of connection (sometimes startling) with the other members. For example, she too traveled the world and had many adventures before becoming a hero. She has been homeless, a thief, a teacher, worshiped as a goddess, offered a throne, been bitten by Count Dracula and can personally take on almost anything inside the earth's atmosphere.

This has been an exercise of the imagination. I invite you to do as much--who would your supreme team of superheroes be? I went after a balance of powers and story-telling potential. You might prefer a different take. Either way, enjoy!

The Debt (Review)

2011-08-31T09:24:00.000-07:00

Spoilers Ahoy!

Was fortunate enough to see an advance screening of The Debt, a 2011 film starring Helen Mirren and Jessica Chastain. The former of course has become a legendary actor, while Jessica Chastain shows every sign of becoming her equal. She makes an excellent choice to play Rachel Singer in her twenties, as Mirren portrays the same character three decades later. Rachel is one of a three-member Mossad team sent to East Berlin in 1967 to kidnap a war criminal known as "The Surgeon of Birkenau."

(Parenthetically, this character would appear to be based somewhat on the infamous Dr. Jozef Mengele, while the operation itself echoes the successful capture-for-trial of Adolf Eichmann)

With Rachel are David (Seth Worthington and Ciaran Hinds) and Stephan (Marton Csokas and Tom Wilkinson). One she will grow to love. The other she will marry and by whom have a child. Eventually. Which makes a good opportunity to mention that, despite what some might claim, The Debt is not primarily a thriller. Not at all. It has plenty of thrilling elements, but first and foremost the story makes a drama--the drama of three individuals pushed to their limits by extraordinary circumstances.

The film periodically switches back and forth between 1967 and 1997, the latter when Rachel's daughter's book about the famous operation sees publication. Coinciding to this is are a series of events that threaten to reveal a secret all three former agents swore to never reveal, never even speak of again. Like many such vows, it ends up un-keepable.

As far as the world knows, the three found the notorious Dr. Dieter Vogel (Jesper Christensen, probably best known as Mr. White from Quantum of Solace) hiding under a false name in East Berlin. This detail I'll admit gave me pause. Of all the places to hide, behind the Iron Curtain seems one of the last places a Nazi war criminal might go. Not that it couldn't be explained, but I wondered. Maybe that was best. It felt like the kind of inconsistent detail with which real life abounds. At this time Rachel endures what has to be the most harrowing scenes in the entire film. Imagine submitting to a gynecological exam from someone who used children as lab rats! Stripping. Putting your legs into stirrups. Allowing that man to touch you in such an intimate place. He behaves politely, professionally, even kindly. But by then we the audience know, and not merely because we saw pictures of his victims. We know because of the look in Jessica Chastain's eyes, the tension that reads like revulsion in every cell of her body.

Sadly, the rest of the movie never equals those scenes. Maybe it couldn't.

What the three share is this. According to official accounts, their method of extracting their subject was compromised, forcing the three to stay hidden in a dingy apartment for weeks, keeping watch over their prisoner who never lost an opportunity to needle them (this seemed just a touch cliche--the evil master manipulator a la Hannibal Lecter). During Rachel's watch, he managed to get free, in the process wounding her very badly, leaving a permanent scar on her face. Before he could get away, she managed to shoot and kill him. They disposed of his body and snuck out, eventually returning to a hero's welcome in Isreal.

The truth? She never got off a shot. He got away. Terrified what it meant for them, and maybe also for the prestige of Isreal itself, Stephan persuades the others to go along with the lie, figuring Vogel with disappear and spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder. Stephan throughout has been the most ruthless of the three, willing to abuse Vogel, then seemingly helpless. David had been the most idealistic, the lone survivor of his family, but for that reason (perhaps) the most vulnerable. Thus Vogel succeeded in getting David to explode in anger, beating their prisoner and breaking a bowl--a shard of which led to the escape. Blaming himself, shocked at his own lack of control, he went along. Rachel, the youngest and least experienced of them, ultimately did the same.

What of the most striking things about the film is how one can compare the younger and older versions of these characters. All look haunted, worn, tired. Mirren's Rachel seems now the strongest, able to handle things and seeing with an increasingly-clear vision the whole situation. Wilkinson's Stephan looks like a man grimly following his life's path, aware too late he did the wrong thing but having learned little more than that. Hinds' David, though, looks like a ravaged soul, one on the edge of self-destruction.

The modern tension of the story deals with David's suicide, evidently linked to a news item about an elderly patient in the Ukraine claiming to be the Surgeon of Birkenau. Here, while done with sublime competence, the drama falls just a little flat. Why? Because we don't feel any surprise. By the time Rachel sneaks into the hospital to see this man who says he is Vogel, I knew there were only two options and which was the many times more likely, more formulaic. That was the one played out. No, this wasn't Vogel. That she very nearly killed him before learning this shocks Rachel into writing a confession and leaving it for a journalist she knows is en route. Following that was the next bit of formula (again, executed very well) in which it turns out Vogel is indeed in that hospital. The very elderly man seeks to kill her, but she fights back and this time accomplishes what she failed all those years ago--killing the butcher of children many decades after his crimes.

Now consider for a moment all the other possibilities here. What if the old patient had been Vogel, then she killed him and couldn't live with herself? Or if she didn't kill him, but saw him as pathetic beyond belief, yearning for a bit of fame, and she manages to convince the reporter he's an insane old man? Then, for her own purposes, comes clean and tells the truth? Or what if Vogel revealed himself because he's in terrible pain, longing for death, and figured this way he'd get those who wanted him dead to do him a favor? What if she did it, out of pity? All those would be far more interesting, compelling that this plot.

No complaints about the utterly stellar cast. Really. Splendid the lot! But director John Madden as well as writers Matthew Vaugn (who pulled a crucial dramatic punch in Kick Ass as well) and Jane Goldman (ditto) all need to learn to take some chances.

Salome in NoHo (Review)

2011-06-22T14:31:00.000-07:00

Spoilers ahoy!

Vampires and Oscar Wilde seem like they should go together when you think on it. Not something I really had thought about very much. True, Wilde woo'd in his youth the icily beautiful young woman who eventually married Bram Stoker. One cannot also but think Wilde and Lestat might have gotten along fabulously. If vampires are vaguely decadent sophisticates, then the author of "The Picture of Dorian Gray" would seem to a spirit sibling at least. More, he knew--only too well--what it was like to have to hide one's desires in plain sight.

But when I saw the premiere of Zombie Joe's Underground Theatre's production of Wilde's much-banned play "Salome" the real association between this writer and that genre became much clearer. Contrary to popular image, Wilde had a finely honed moral sense. He saw only too clearly the contradictions of man's highest hopes, how they entwine with our basest desires. He talk of decadence, of aesthetics and those witty barbs coupled with outlandish behavior made him the Lady Gaga of his day. More, he expressed in this play more than any other how life can be empty enough to drive a person mad.

Remember how in Anne Rice's novels and in Lindqvist's "Let The Right One In" so many vampires eventually commit suicide? Wilde would have understood. Oh, yes.

This particular production has its strengths and weaknesses. Forgive the rant, but its faults are almost entirely those of technique. Too often actors and directors in the US simply never get trained about how to approach verse plays (such as "Salome") and fall into a series of traps. Hardly a one such trap remained up-sprung here. Monologues of heightened language gushed forth, powered by one emotion. Stage business too often replaced genuine action between characters. Jokanaan (i.e. John the Baptist) looked great, but when he preached he clearly had no idea to whom he was speaking or what he expected to get from his words (with one marvelous exception--when he urged the title character to save her soul, that was REAL). Many times the background players did things with the air of a sitcom, or maybe a hint of vaudeville (which might have worked if taken much, much, much further--to the point of grotesquerie).

Mind you, "Salome" is very nearly a three-person play. It hinges on what happens between King Herod, his wife Herodias, and her daughter (his stepdaughter) the princess Salome. Tim Ottman gave the best performance in the show. His slightly gaunt features in whiteface captured a good look for the King. More importantly, his voice helped that face bring his character to life--and that character is a vampire, albeit not in the supernatural sense. Herod is a man who's tired of life--having seen and done and tasted and tried everything he can think of, and in abundance. Now he reigns out of habit. His royal edicts are born out of whim and terror. Tired of life, yes--but horrified at the thought of death. Superstitious without being able (or willing) to treat spirituality or faith seriously. So he locks up a prophet who speaks out against him, yet refuses to kill the man, no matter how much his queen nags him to do so. The temptation with King Herod is to make him just an obnoxious bore. But Ottman played the pathos of the man. Like an ancient liche who clings to life, his Herod clings to his emptiness yet will recklessly seek to fill it.

In a way he's a mirror of the title character--save that at least Herod has lived. Salome--she has all his ennui but nothing of his wisdom. Having grown up in a decadent court as the King's only child (albeit by marriage), Salome plays the simple social games skillfully but automatically. Her problem? She doesn't really want anything. Not very much anyway. A life without meaning is a life without hope, without any real desire. So when she sees a genuine prophet, someone totally different and (most importantly) brimming with genuine passion, what is her natural reaction? She wants it. Longs for it. Hungers for it.

Hungers for him.

Lita Penaherrera makes for a lovely princess, and has a natural charm about her. There's something nicely catlike about her manner and looks. Banter between her and Herod reminded me weirdly enough of scenes between vampires and their sires in films like "Interview" and "Vampire Journals" and even "Near Dark." A stretch? Not really. What she and Herod have in common is a deep, abiding thirst for life--one that each will go to extremes to slake. How vampiric. And yes, how undead. Not alive, not really, but still moving about making a fuss. Dangerous. Boundless appetite coupled with extraordinary power.

Penaherrera made an unfortunate choice with her Salome--to portray her as a spoiled brat. Demanding her way she did not so much cajole or manipulate or even play as pout and have a temper tantrum. She reminded me of Veruca Salt, a little bit. Instead of a teenager with the world-weariness of an ancient, what we got was a deranged child. She longs for John the Baptist, to touch him, to feel him, to kiss him. When he refuses, she's left unsatisfied enough a terrible idea comes forth. Her stepfather--clearly savoring an incestuous lust that quickens his aging flesh--forever asks her to sit by him, share some fruit with him, drink from the same glass of wine as himself. Dance for him. He finally offers anything she desires up to half of his kingdom if she will but dance for him.

Anything? Anything at all? Yes, he vows. They are both empty and seek to fill themselves even a little.

So she dances. Let it be said this dance was very scenic in many ways. More modern than middle eastern, but then the play was set in a modern era (or some version of one) so no complaints there. Panaherrera is indeed a lovely young lady, and she can indeed dance (having worked with plenty of actors who cannot I realize this is no small thing). One can fully understand Herod's desires. The audience applauded for her dance, quite rightfully so.

Next, she springs the trap. Her price? The head of John the Baptist on a silver platter. Herod, horrified at the thought of either breaking his word or slaying a prophet (the man is intensely superstitious remember), begs and cajoles and tries to negotiate his way out of it. She remains implacable. Her mother (the third major player--quite competently performed by Sasha Ilford--this is a compliment since many actors rarely rise to the level of competence) crows with triumph and pride, under the mistaken impression this is a gift to her from Salome. Ah, no. It is an attempt to feed, to quench an undying thirst for love, for life, for meaning. Salome no less than Herod is a vampire of sorts. Is it any wonder her love story ends with the death of her beloved? That the end of the play is a soliloquy to a severed head--a living dead girl exulting that she may finally kiss Jokanaan's beautiful mouth, then realizing the man she loved is now destroyed. What good his mouth for kissing without a tongue that speaks and kisses back? How can any face remain lovely to behold when the eyes are empty, dull, nothing but flesh with no fire within them. He cannot see her. And Salome...weeps.

Who does not see in her a vampire? Someone neither dead nor alive, eternally hungry and forever unsatisfied, a temptress who kills the man she loves then kisses his bloody dead lips? This production has its faults and honestly, they are many, but the core was there. Appropriately, the co-producers of this show is the Fabulous Monsters Performance Group. If anyone is interested, you can learn more about the show at zombiejoes.com or urbandeath.com.

Note: After finally getting over a severe cold and performing in this year's Cairo Caravan, I will be writing my reviews of the final three episodes this season of Game of Thrones next. I promise!

Game of Thrones 7 "You Win or You Die" (Review)

2011-05-30T11:46:00.000-07:00

Spoilers ahoy!

"You Win or You Die" seems a straightforward idea, especially when discussing something called the Game of Thrones. Doesn't it? Wrong. Because win or lose, you die. What you do before all that, you have to decide whether you've won anything or not. Or what you want to win.

On the one hand there seems to be a huge amount of power play going on in this, as in every episode of the HBO series based on Martin's fantasy epic. Almost immediately this comes through as we meet Tywin Lannister, Lord of Castlery Rock, father of Jaime, Tyrion and Cercei. He proceeds to do what many characters do in this and other episodes--try and make a point about how the world works. Family and power, such is his message boiled down to basics. Jaime has been a fool to attack Ned Stark. A bigger fool not to do him in. Stark himself has been a fool, not least for daring to take a Lannister--any Lannister--prisoner.

Appropriately enough, Tywin is butchering an animal with his bare hands while espousing all this.

Ned Stark meanwhile tells the Queen what he knows--that none of the King's children are his own, but rather the fruit of incest between Jaime and Cersei. He's also figured out they tried to kill his son. In an act that does seem terribly naive, he gives the Queen a chance to flee with her children. Her reply contains more sentiment as well as ruthlessness than her father--the closeness she feels with Jaime, who shared a womb with her, and that Stark was a fool for not taking the throne himself in the war that toppled King Aerys.

Osha meanwhile (the Wyldling woman now a servant at Winterfell) gets caught up in a conversation with Theon, heir to the Iron Islands and hostage/guest of the Starks since boyhood. She doesn't see things at all the way he does, and it disturbs him just a bit. In her eyes, he is from The South (i.e. south of the Wall) and not a Lord because his father is still Lord. She's also not afraid. As she tells the Maester, she's used to men who would eat "that boy" and use his bones to pick their teeth. Despite this she is frightened. Very much. Of what comes with the Long Winter. This things have been gone for thousands of years, she's told. Not gone--sleeping, she replies. And now, they've woken up...

It goes on. Littlefinger instructs a pair of his whores about how to deceive/please their customers (one just arrived from the North), not taking part but watching and talking, revealing much. As a child he loved a high born young lady, and she loved him in her way. So he says. But her intended beat him a duel, which taught the young man he will never win "their" way...

Evocative that.

King Robert, meanwhile, has been fatally wounded while hunting boar. He knows he's dying. Can smell it in the wound. Expresses regret he spent so little time with his son, Prince Joffrey (the Vile--editorial comment). And he names Ned Stark as Regent, agreeing with him to cancel the order to kill Princess Danaerys. Not that that is really possible now. But--and here Ned makes another error--he hears no news of his children's real parentage.

The would be assassin of the Princess/Khaleesi fails, because someone we learn works for the Spider (the head of Westeros' spies) thwarts the plan. Nothing is as it seems. Meanwhile Danaerys slowly coaxes her beloved Khal Drogo to consider the conquest of the Seven Kingdoms. He listens to his beloved wife (and it is very nice to see how much these two have bonded) but only up to a point. After all, re remains Dothraki!

At the Wall, Jon Snow's uncle's horse returns riderless. Soon after, Jon Snow is fully accepted into the Nightwatch, but to everyone's surprise is chosen from among the Stewards, not the Rangers! He takes it badly, but gets yet another lesson in how he's being way too lordly and egocentric. Sam sees the truth of it, that Jon is being groomed by the Lord Commander, who asked for him personally. On top of this is what just might be something prophetic, when Sam says simply "I always wanted to be a wizard."

Magic is coming back, have you noticed? The White Walkers walk. There is talk of Dragons.

Back in King's Landing, King Robert's brother Renly tries to talk some sense into Ned Stark. He knows Cersei will never sit by quietly and allow Stark to be Regent. They need to strike now, before it is too late. Stark's mind is more on who should be King, which in his mind is eldest Barantheon brother, Stannis. Renly asks pointedly "Do you still think good soldiers make good kings?"

These questions keep coming up. What helps make Martin's work so interesting is that he never provides a definitive answer. Honestly, is there a single person we've met yet who looks like they should sit on the Iron Throne?

All this disturbs Stark, but he doesn't see any path other than the straight and narrow. Littlefinger also has a plan, one that sounds ruthless if workable (although by now only someone quite naive in the audience quite believes anything the man says).

In the wake of the failed assassination attempt, Khal Drogo pledges to his wife "Moon of my Life" to give to their son the Iron Throne. So that seemingly naive bit of advice from Ned Stark, to leave her alone, proved wise after all.

On the other hand, tactically he's completely outmatched back at King's Landing. The Queen and her son the new King care nothing of King Robert's written instructions once he is dead...

Game of Thrones 6 "A Golden Crown" (Review)

2011-05-23T21:05:00.000-07:00

Spoilers ahoy!

One of the most difficult lessons methinks life has to teach us is that people lie. Sometimes they do it without any such intention. If you want to win the Game of Thrones, or simply survive it, learning that lesson cannot be overestimated. Or, as Sun Tzu put it, "Know your self, know your enemy and in a thousand battles you will know only victory."

Much easier said that done!

Way back in episode one, Danaerys of House Targaryan seemed such the fragile flower under the none-too-kind fist of her brother. Remember?

Going back to the rest of episode for now, King Robert and the rest of Westeros face a disaster brewing--two of the most powerful houses look to start fighting each other. Alas, the noble Starks are probably in the wrong. Does anyone believe Tyrion Lannister tried to have young Brandon killed? And is taking him to the looney Lady Lysa of the Vale really someone to find out either way? Catelyn's sister or not, the woman comes across as worse bitch that Cercei.

Think about that for a second.

But if there is a survivor among these characters, it is Tyrion. He tricks his way into demanding a public trial by combat--a wild gamble at best, but which pays off. A shrewd mercenary proves perfectly willing to fight for a member of the wealthiest family in the Seven Kingdoms--and proves ruthless enough to kill Lady Lysa's knightly champion without honor, but (more to the point) successfully.

Lord Stark meanwhile finds himself drafted (again) to be King's Hand while King Robert goes hunting (killing things clears his mind, he says--in fact he waxes nostalgic for the "good ol' days" of war against the Mad King, Danaerys' dad). Sitting in the King's stead, Stark proceeds to raise quite a ruckus. Seems the Mountain That Rides--the gigantic and vicious knight sworn to the Lannisters--is attacking the lands of Catelyn's Stark's brother. The King's Hand tells a hundred men to go capture him, attaining him for treason and stripping Mountain of his knighthood, then demands Lord Lannister come to King's Landing to account for his retainer's actions. This in the wake of Jaime Lannister stabbing Ned Stark and killing the man's own retainer in the streets--all in retaliation for Catelyn taking Tyrion prisoner.

One wonders if this is how dominoes was invented way back when?

In an example of how the game of thrones is played better, Joffrey goes and woos Sansa, apologizing for his mean words and promising she will be his queen. The poor (silly) girl, totally taken in, gets her first kiss from mini-Caligula and will no doubt do whatever he asks of her. Sansa seems destined for an awakening almost as ugly as that awaiting a certain would-be Dragon...

Lord Stark, realizing things are getting unsafer by the hour, wants his daughters to head back to Winterfell. They object--each for reasons of their own (Arya is finally getting good with a sword) which leads to an important exchange. Arya points out Joffrey is not a lion. That's his mother's family's sigil! Sansa says Joffrey is nothing like King Robert--a fact of which she strongly approves, but which lights up a candle above their father's head (no lightbulbs in Westeros). He goes and checks out that tome Jon Arryn found so engrossing prior to his murder--a geneology book that describes every single member of King Robert's family for generations. Black hair. Black hair. Black hair. Black hair. Black hair. Until...Joffrey. Golden hair.

Of course, we're not surprised, are we? We the audience know that Queen Cercei has been committing incest with her twin brother for...who knows how long? Come to think of it, all three royal children are blond...

Back in Winterfell, Brandon continues to dream about a crow with three eyes. He also tries out his new specially built saddle that allows him to ride. While his brother Robb ponders his duties now that the Lannisters are openly attacking his kinsmen, Theon Greyjoy their ward/hostage from the Iron Islands argues about what should be done. Alas Brandon rides ahead, finding himself confronted by some brigands--evidently Wyldlings fleeing south. They explicitly mention going somewhere where there are no White Walkers...

Yeah, the real crisis is up north, beyond the Wall, where God-Knows-What primordial evil is brewing, bring the dead back to life as well as heralding a winter longer than lifetimes...! No one is paying any attention to that though!

The upshot is that all the Wyldings save one end up dead. The survivor is a woman named Osha who agrees to enter into the service of the Starks. I am thrilled to note she is played by Natalia Tena, aka Tonks in Harry Potter! Pardon me while I squeeeee!

But this week's episode focuses on the title, the golden crown Viserys thinks should be his. It has dawned upon the Targaryan Pretender that the Dothraki actually love his little sister, and he finds himself jealous. Jealous enough to do something sad and infantile and very, very, very dangerous. Drunk, he enters into a feast where Khal Drogo and his people are celebrating a prophecy that says Danaerys bears the future Khal of Khals, whose herd shall be all people everywhere in the world. The would be Dragon pulls a sword on his sister, demanding the golden crown he was promised. Danaerys doesn't even blink. She calmly translates her husband's agreement--he will give Viserys a crown of gold that will inspire dread in all who see it. Just as calmly, she watches as the Dothraki pin him down while Drogo pours melted gold over her brother's head.

"He was no dragon," she says. "Fire cannot kill a dragon."

Yeah, a delicate flower.

Game of Thrones 5 "The Wolf and the Lion" (Review)

2011-05-16T19:07:00.000-07:00

Spoilers ahoy!

True story. Back when I first started to get into Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, there was this movie. A really cool one. The very first Harry Potter flick--and during the quidditch match I found myself hissing at Gryffindor! Why? Because their arms as the same as the Lannisters. The vile, greedy and vicious Lannisters (except for Tyrion of course).

Lannisters (the name comes from the managers of gladitorial games in ancient Rome--the pimps of death) are the lions, just as the Starks are wolves. This episode is about them both. For once we don't see the lovely Danaerys or her semi-sociopathic brother. We hear about them, though. News arrives at the King's Council that the last Targaryan is pregnant--and King Robert wants her assassinated. It says a lot about Ned Stark that he resigns as the King's Hand rather than have any part of it.

What's going on with Tyrion says a lot about him--and about his captors. En route to the Aerie, tall castle of the Vale where Catelyn's sister (and the late Hand Jon Arryn's widow) rules, Tyrion points simply asks what kind of idiot gives a hired assassin his own dagger? When the party finds itself attacked by brigands, Tyrion ends up saving Catelyn--who cannot help but notice he is making sense. Plus he issues a warning. How long since she's seen her sister? The lady in question as changed...

As in, she's kinda nuts. In fact Lady Lysa feels insulted Catelyn has brought a Lannister--whom she blames for her husband's death--there. Think about that for a few seconds. How much sense does that make? Add to that the...well...weird detail she's still nursing her son. Her son who looks at least five years old. Catelyn publicly notes Tyrion is her prisoner, not to be harmed, which gets the young(ish) Lion tossed into a prison cell. An impressive one. One wall is missing, leaving the prisoner exposed to the elements but allowing no escape since there's sheer drop of several hundred feet.

Back in King's Landing, repercussions from Catelyn's capture of a Lannister starts things rolling, albeit not immediately. Lord Stark still traces the steps of his predecessor (the aforementioned Jon Arryn), visiting the various bastards of King Robert. His daughter Sansa crushes quite a bit on the Knight of the Flowers at the ongoing tournament, unaware he already has a secret paramour--the King's brother Renly. In fact he's urging the man to make himself King one day, despite being fourth in line.

Parenthetically, one of many refreshing things about this fantasy is the presence of homosexuals. Usually this genre ignores them. More on that later as the story unfolds.

Arya meanwhile--my fave of the Stark daughters and pretty much my favorite Stark period--is learning how to catch cats. It is to make her quick of hand and foot and mind. Bet that would work, too. Down in the dungeons, amidst the skulls of dragons (mentioned by Viserys last week) she hides when hearing voices. It seems the King's Master of Whispers (i.e. spymaster) is having a conversation with the the very merchant prince who arranged Danaerys' marriage to Khal Drogo! The wolf and the lion will soon be fighting each other, which may be too soon. Drogo won't even consider bringing his troops until after his son is born! Too bad Arya doesn't recognize the speakers, nor memorize their words nor understand enough to tell her father the full gist--although she tries.

A weird and melancholy scene acts out between Robert and his Queen, noting how neither is happy yet both feel an odd comradarie in mutual hate. He even admits how he cannot recall how his beloved fiancee, Ned's sister, looked--but when she died the hole in his life couldn't even be filled by seven whole kingdoms. She admits to never having asked, initially out of hurt, then out of spite, and now asks because she feels...nothing.

No wonder these two produced that mini-Caligula Prince Joffrey!

We end this episode with an ambush and an attack. Jaime Lannister, learning his brother was carried off by Lord Stark's wife, demands Tyrion's return. He does so with soldiers--and several end up dead, including Jory Cassel who takes a dagger through the eye. Jaime's dagger. A broadsword duel between Jaime and Stark is interrupted by one of the former's soldiers stabbing Stark in the leg from behind. Interstingly, Jaime backhands him for that stunt. He demands the return of his brother, then rides off leaving the Lord of the North to find medical attention.

All in all, interesting how none of the Lannisters so far have proven quite as vile as they seem--Tyrion to Catelyn, and the rest to the audience.

Game of Thrones 4 "Cripples, Bastards & Broken Things" (Review)

2011-05-09T19:57:00.000-07:00

Spoilers ahoy!

Rarely was a title so apt. When Tyrion shows up at Winterfell with plans for a special saddle--one that would allow young Lord Bran to ride again--Robb Stark asks him why he did this? "Because I have a weakness for cripples, bastards and broken things" is the dwarf's reply.

This world seems full of such. Not least Tyrion himself. Others are crippled or broken in other ways. At the Wall, the Night Watch faces the coming winter and terrible times with few men, most of those unready. Jon Snow, however, he wants to do something about it. He's training the other new recruits, and in the process becoming their Leader. Even Samwell, the newest "volunteer" (as in volunteered by his father, upon pain of an accident while hunting) to take the black--fat, nervous, a terrible fighter. But winter is coming. More, the White Walkers are back--even if nobody believes it. Not yet.

One curious thing about Martin's epic fantasy is the relative lack of fantasy elements--which is why of course the seven kingdoms aren't ready nor trying to get ready for the danger looming. Dragons existed once, yes. But not for many years. White Walkers? Last seen eight thousand years past. A slave girl tells Viserys she's seen a man who could change his face. But we haven't.

Bran, though, saw a raven with three eyes. In his dreams.

Viserys himself is broken, a stunted prince who longs for a throne but remains petty. He actually reacts with rage when his sister sends a servant to invite him to dinner. Why? Because he doesn't take orders. Neither does he react well to Danaerys growing into her own power (with a chilling threat--"The next time you lay hands on me is the last time you will have hands"). She sees him as broken now, someone who can never reclaim the Iron Throne. Never.

Lady Sansa begins to feel broken, maybe even crippled. Seeing her first tourney, in which a ferocious knight known as The Mountain Who Rides kills a younger man in front of her, proves sobering. Horrifying. Even terrifying. Baelish, aka Littlefinger, seems to want to strengthen her and also her father. Ned Stark himself finds himself busy following the clues of what happened to Jon Arryn, his predecessor as King's Hand. Littlefinger warns him too, even going so far as to tell him "Not trusting me is the smartest thing you did since you arrived."

So much intrigue. Family drama. Politics and mystery brewing. But almost all of it distractions.

Broken also is Lady Catelyn Stark, which leads her to do something wonderful and shortsighted at the end. Believing Tyrion's dagger used in the attempt on Bran's life, she doesn't want him to see her on the road. Doesn't want his family to know she hasn't been at Winterfell, the vast castle of the North. But when he recognizes her at an Inn, she rises to the occasion. Not addressing him, but the various warriors present--all sworn to her father's banner, Tully of Riverrun--she stirs their loyalty. Then points her finger at the Imp, accusing him of conspiring to kill her son, demanding they seize him to face the King's Justice!

His face as they draw their swords is how the episode ends. Rarely have we seen Tyrion Lannister at a loss for words. Is he that good a liar? Or is he innocent? What do you think?

Game of Thrones 3 "Lord Snow" (Review)

2011-05-08T06:00:00.000-07:00

Spoilers ahoy!

George R.R. Martin, author of the novels upon which the HBO series Game of Thrones is based, is something of an expert on the Middle Ages. He violates a lot of expectations when it comes to what we believe about those days. Knights on horseback. Heraldry. Peasants and castles, law and religion. Because real life does the same. Nothing ever fits into the rules.

Which is a lot of what episode three, "Lord Snow," is all about. So far the series' focus seems to have been all about the schemes and secrets surrounding the royal court. But--remember the very first scene? The White Walkers no one (and I do mean no one) believes in? All awake, the now-crippled lordling Bran (who remembers nothing of what happened to him) wants to hear from his Nan the scariest of all tales--about the coming of winter, when the snow reached a hundred feet tall, and a night that lasted a generation. That was when the White Walkers came...

And we don't get to hear the rest. But remember the Stark words: Winter Is Coming.

Meanwhile lovely Queen Cersei gives her charming son Prince Joffrey some words of advice, about how when he is King the world will be as he says it is (uh...no). And that everyone who is not "us" is an enemy. Motherly love and advice. Heart-warming.

But the title character of this ep is up at the Wall, having joined the Night Watch and figured out the truth--rather than a noble order of honorable guardians, they are a penal colony of those without other choices. No one believes in the White Walkers. No one thinks the old tales might be true. Hence the scant supplies they receive, the meager types of men who end up there (mostly felons given a choice between this and death). Jon Snow, bastard son of Lord Stark by an unknown mother, feels betrayed. He also feels superior. Yet, partially as he speaks to Tyrion Lannister, he not only starts to see his life has actually been pretty sweet but also that here are men whose respect he must earn.

Danaerys, meanwhile, finds herself in a confrontation with her brother, Viserys--and both learn the Dothraki respect her but not him. A world turned up-side-down. Not least because she finds herself happy to tell Khal Drogo (in his own language no less) that she is with child. Recall how the series began, her weeping in terror at submitting to this huge man? Yet by now (a few months' time in the show) she smiles sleeping at his side.

Lord Stark has a less pleasant surprise waiting him, as it becomes clear the Realm is deep in debt--and King Robert's to blame. He just doesn't care, as is shown in scenes like the one where he keeps asking people about their first kills. In particular he hopes to discomfort his brother in law, Jaime Lannister. Here again things are not as they seem. Because we hate him, right? Deservedly so? But everybody else seems to despise him and why? Because he killed a tyrant. Even Ned Stark--whose father and brother were burned alive by the late Mad King--blames Jaime for having put this monster to death.

He also sees his lady wife who has come to King's Landing to give him some special intelligence--the attempted assassination of Bran with a special blade, one identified by the realm's Master of Coin (treasurer) Lord Petyr Baelish as his own, lost in a wager to Tyrion Lannister!

Really, doesn't that surprise you? And have you learned yet to doubt whether he's telling the truth?

One of my favorite characters, Arya starts getting lessons in how to use her rapier-like blade. The Water Dance, her instructor calls it--one of the single most fun scenes yet. Arya loves learning how to fence! You can see it in her face! Likewise her teacher clearly feels thrilled at finding such an avid, young and talented student! Of all people, the staid and conservative Lord Stark arranges these lessons--and initially
seems thrilled at her prowess. Yet as he watches, he hears the sounds of battle, and we can see a horrible memory ripple across his face.

Third episode in a row that ends with one of the youngest Stark children. Methinks this is a pattern, and an omen of what is to come. Not a short game of thrones is being played here. No, not at all.

Game of Thrones 2 "The Kingsroad" (Review)

2011-05-07T06:00:00.000-07:00

Spoilers ahoy!

When last we left our heroes, pretty much everyone was getting ready to hit the road--with one major exception. Young Bran Stark is unconscious, probably crippled following a "fall" (i.e. being pushed, although no one knows that) from a tower in the great castle of Winterfell. His mother Catelyn, staggered with grief, refuses to leave his side--and shoots daggers with her eyes when Jon Snow (her husband's bastard) visits his brother to say goodbye.

Jon is headed north to the Wall--300 miles wide, 700 feet tall, made of gravel and ice to protect Westeros from what lies beyond. He is to join the Night Watch, proud guardians of the realm for eight thousand years. Or at least that is how he sees it. Accompanying him to see the place is Tyrion Lannister, aka The Imp who just wants to see the thing. He's also the one who makes his ghastly nephew Joffrey express condolences to the Starks over their loss. It says a lot about him that it takes a strong cuffing to make him do as much.

Soon Lord Stark joins King Robert on the long trip by horseback to King's Landing, capital of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros.

Meanwhile, the last of the deposed Targaryans are headed inland across the Narrow Sea on the continent of Essos. Pretender Viserys accompanies the Dothraki whose leader has married his sister, eager to begin the war which will put him on his father's throne. Said sister Danaerys' focus proves both more narrow and far more wide. While adjusting to the constant horse-riding and the sexual appetites her husband, she asks her handmaidens about Dothraki beliefs and one in particular about how to please a man. Rather than merely endure her life, she seeks to gain control. Before long, she proves successful. Khal Drogo rather likes her interesting notion of sex face to face. We can see this marriage becoming stronger, no matter how it began. Danaerys, the daughter of kings and bride of a tribal lord, starts to show her mettle. She also finds herself ever more fascinated by the dragon eggs given to her as a wedding gift.

Contrast this with Viserys, who wants to know why the Westeros knight Jorah Mormont who's joined them had to leave. He was caught selling poachers into slavery. The Pretender almost laughs, assuring him such nonsense will end when he is King.

One of the things I so love about this show is how vividly each character emerges. The two siblings on the road east make for a perfect example. Viserys eyes are totally on what he himself wants, displaying all the ethics of rat. His sister wants to find a way to be happy, to learn, and sees beyond her own desires to the unfathomable--these dragon eggs and what they might mean (keep in mind the book series itself is titled A Song of Ice and Fire, with the next book called The Dance of Dragons--with luck we'll be seeing that dramatized in about four years).

Likewise we're getting a real notion of King Robert, who loved Ned's late sister very much. He and Ned Stark were boys together, trained by Jon Arryn, the Hand (Prime Minister/Shogun) whose death has prompted Robert to appoint Ned to take his place. But this King doesn't like being on the throne, longs for earlier, simpler days. One can see why Ned looks worried. Here is not a man who wants to be King, seems to have precious little talent at it, yet sits upon the throne.

Can we say "recipe for disaster?"

Before Jon Snow left for the Wall, he gives to his sister Arya her own sword--not a heavy broadsword but something a lot closer to a rapier. We can see the two are close, which in turn gives a pretty strong hint of what this household is like much of the time. She names her sword "Needle" because all great swords have names.

As Jon and his father parted, the former asks (evidently far from the first time) for some information about his mother. I'll spoil you and say that speculation on that question is rife among the fans. Ned promises to tell him all the next time they meet. Methinks we can safely say that won't happen for a long while.

Back at Winterfell, an assassin tries to kill Bran, but gets his throat ripped through by the boy's dire wolf (much to Catelyn's astonishment). More disturbing--why would anyone pay to have a boy murdered? The blade involved is extremely good work, Valyran steel. Catelyn believes her husband needs to know about this but distrusts regular communication. She heads for King's Landing, leaving Robb in charge ("There must always be a Stark at Winterfell").

On the road, the vile Joffrey has turned the charm on for Sansa, Ned's eldest daughter. He lets the mask slip however in an encounter with Arya as she practices swordplay with a butcher's son. Arya's dire wolf Nymeria bites his wrist when he attacks her for defending her friend. The girl wisely disarms the Prince, then runs into the woods with Nymeria, whom she frees in order to save from Joffrey's vengeance. Methinks we have not seen the last of that creature. But sadly, we have seen all we ever will of Sansa's dire wolf. To placate his Queen--who reacts in righteous fury at anything going wrong for her beloved child--King Robert orders that dire wolf killed in place of the one that got away. That Sansa actually lied for Joffrey's sake means nothing.

Ned carries out the killing himself. It is the way of the North. He who passes judgment should wield the sword. Along the way he learns the scarred warrior Sandor the Hound (so-called for his distinctive helm) has found the butcher's son and killed him.

At the very moment Lady (Sansa's dire wolf) dies, Bran opens his eyes in Winterfell. That is two episodes in a row that end with him. Coincidence?

Game of Thrones 1 "Winter is Coming" (Review)

2011-05-06T06:00:00.000-07:00

Spoilers ahoy!

I've decided to review each episode of the new HBO series Game of Thrones as they come out. And yes--I'm behind. So I'll have to play catch-up.

For whoever doesn't know, GoT is based on the first of a multi-novel epic fantasy by George R.R.Martin (creator of t.v.'s Beauty and the Beast). The next book comes out in July. I've read all of them so far and am completely addicted. Frustrated, too. Each of these books is longer than Lord of the Rings and the man is a perfectionist. They take years and years to complete. Oh so worth it though...

Episode one, Winter is Coming, focuses on introducing us to this world--specifically House Stark, Lords of Winterfell. One of (very) few complaints about the opener is that we don't really get a sense of how huge the great castle of Winterfell really is. In world where seasons of indeterminate length--they can last months or years or even decades--the North needs a castle that can function as a city. Winterfell is supposed to have the equivalent of a small forest inside its walls, which wasn't really clear, alas. But...early days.

Lord Eddard "Ned" Stark is the head his family--wife Catelyn, daughters Sansa (a very girly girl hoping to wed the Crown Prince) and Arya (tomboy to the bone), sons Robb (his heir), Bran (the climber) and Rickon (at this point little more than a baby). He also has an illegitimate son, Jon Snow. One day Ned rides out with his three eldest sons to judge a deserter. The Stark way says "the man who passes the judgment must wield the sword," which he does. Ned gets no pleasure from beheading a young man he regards as a weak madman. But the law is the law.

What he doesn't know is that the deserter was not mad. A member of the Nightwatch, who man a wall of ice several hundred feet high with castles attached, he had been part of a patrol to check on what was going on in the wild country north of the wall. His claim to have seen the White Walkers (in whom nobody believes) is the utter truth. Winter is coming. And no one really knows what that means.

Headed back, Ned and his party come across a dire wolf (think giant prehistoric wolf) killed by a stag's antler. The stag lies nearby, also dead. But before death, the direwolf gave birth--six pups. One for each of the Lord Stark's children, including an albino for Jon Snow. Much is made of the dire wolf being the sigil of House Stark. An omen, yes? Ominously, no one mentions the stag is the sigil of the King, Ned's old friend Robert. When they get back to Winterfell, news awaits that the King is en route.

A nice touch--the dire wolf cubs grow noticeably by the time the royal party arrives. Westoros--the vast kingdom where the story takes place--is huge and most people travel by horse or foot.

Meanwhile, across the sea the last two members of the dynasty overthrown by Ned and Robert a generation earlier plot to return. Viserys and Danaerys Targaryan are the only surviving children of the dead king (more of him in upcoming episodes). They are pale of hair and elfin of feature, both quite young, and the brother has a plan to get the army he needs to reclaim Westeros. It involves giving his sister in marriage to the leader or chieftan of the Dothraki--a fierce race of mounted archers rather like armor-less Klingons. Danaerys, terrified of marriage to this gigantic brute and equally terrified of disobeying her brother, takes a bath in water she's warned is far too hot still. Yet she hardly flinches. She may not realize it yet, but there is steel in her soul, waiting to be forged.

Next we meet King Robert--big, blustering, fun-loving and eager to make Ned his new Hand (something like a super Prime Minister, or maybe Shogun). The former Hand, Jon Arryn, died suddenly. With the King is his wife Cersei Lannister and her two siblings--handsome twin Jaime and the ingenious dwarf Tyrion, aka "The Imp." We meet him in a whorehouse, drinking wine and trading quips with the ladies. The brothers clearly like each other, just as Cersei cannot stand Tyrion. Neither can Prince Joffrey, the handsome heir to the throne who gives off a Caligula vibe. Really, his name might as well be Malfoy. I'm not kidding. The younger royal siblings seem to quite like Tyrion, though, and he them. He even offers Jon Snow an important piece of advice about how to live with being a bastard--choose to wear that title with pride, and the word cannot hurt. What do you know of being a bastard, Jon asks? Didn't you know? All dwarves are bastards in their father's eyes.

Across the Narrow Sea, Danaerys weds the huge warlord Kal Drogo. Among the wedding gifts are three petrified dragon's eggs. Dragons, we're told, are extinct (having read the book I know they've been gone almost two centuries) but the eggs are still beautiful. That night, in tears, she loses her virginity to her towering groom...

In Winterfell, Bran goes climbing amidst the towers and roofs of his castle home. He hears something in a deserted tower room, and peaks inside. He probably doesn't understand what he sees--

Queen Cersei and Jaime are having sex. They spot him, and Jaime grabs the boy. "He's seen us," Cersei hisses. Her brother sighs"What I do for love."

And throws Bran out the window...

The publicity machine dubs Game of Thrones as "The Sopranos in Middle Earth." Which is funny, and evocative, but not quite accurate. Toss in Ivanhoe, plus some I, Claudius to the mix, and a few dashes of 30 Days of Night. Episode one is by its very nature a beginning. For me, a fan of the novels, I wish their King Robert had been a lot taller--a lumbering giant of a man. But how I adore Peter Dinklage getting to play what must be the role of a lifetime--Tyrion the Imp already is the most fascinating character on screen.

THOR! (Review)

2011-05-05T12:21:00.000-07:00

Spoilers ahoy!

Last night I took advantage of living in Los Angeles to see a sneak preview of the latest superhero flick Thor. If you are enough of a geek to be following these things (and I am) then perhaps you already know that Marvel Comics is trying something rather cool. Their superhero universe is a complex, interlocked place more grounded in the (so-called) real world than their chief rival, DC. With the success of such films as Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, they began setting up a future project--a film about Marvel's premier superhero team, the Avengers.

Said Avengers movie should start filming any day now, with Joss Whedon at the helm. Squee with me if you like.

Continued effort went into this film, making it part of a greater continuity. We once again see SHIELD (Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division) agent Coulson, as well as a shout-out to the Hulk and a funny quip referencing Tony Stark. More, we see another SHIELD operative named Barton whose weapon of choice is a compound bow and arrow. There's also a fun little coda at the end, after the credits.

But how is the film itself? First of all, it is fun. Overdone action sequences are all too common in movies, lacking any balance with genuine peril and emotional connection to those involved (without which we don't care about any outcome). Thor strikes an almost perfect balance--testimony to the directing skills of Kenneth Branaugh (whose Henry V remains one of my favorite Shakespeare films of all time). The look stuns with its gorgeousness, especially an actual translation into physicality the often-outlandish designs iconic to the comic book's Asgard. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) traditionally wears a particularly impressive and unrealistic outfit, with horns extending almost a yard in front of him--yet in the film this looks is recreated just enough. We recognize it. Yet it looks realistic. No small feat. Ditto the regal armor of Odin Allfather, Heimdall, the Destroyer and others.

Very importantly, good actors play all these roles. Relative newcommer Chris Hemsworth plays the lead, and if he seems less accomplished or mature than Tony Stark or Bruce Banner--he is supposed to be. Indeed that makes up much of the story. As a great fighter and heir to the King, he behaves far too much like the star quarterback in high school. Genuine qualities of courage and leadership mix with arrogance, impatience and a certain amount of greed. He needs to grow up, and his father (played splendidly by Sir Anthony Hopkins) forces matters after his son almost single-handedly starts a war. Stripped of his powers, and his enchanted weapon, Thor falls to Earth. He soon hears his hammer fell not far away, but learns the hard way the truth of what his father said before hurling it after him--only one who is worthy may wield the hammer. Unlike Excaliber, having the right genetics means nothing. It all depends upon your character.

Thor himself is found by a scientist named Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), which makes for a nice updating. In the comics she was a nurse. Her function in the tale is as a guide to this stranger in a strange land, as well as a friend/love interest as he realizes how his own folly has led to this personal disaster.

Here frankly is also the film's greatest weakness. For the whole middle of the story, Thor is supposed to be growing up--a lot--as well as falling in love. One doesn't quite believe it. Almost. But not quite. No complaints about the acting. Hemsworth (looking rather like a more boyish, far less sinister Eric from True Blood) conveys a lot of personal shock, sometimes by doing nothing. Not the easiest thing to pull off. The pain in his eyes seems real. But--the film seems to need a few more emotional beats to let that aspect of the story sink in. Ditto the love story. One senses an attraction, but we don't really believe these two have fallen in love (although the idea that they might do so feels totally right).

Please note, these are nuances. What we see remains a riveting tale, with surprising twists throughout. Again, very fine actors in all the roles, including the splendid Colm Feore as King of the Frost Giants (he's also now a regular on the cable series The Borgias). Idris Elba does his usual wonderful job, in this case getting to play a character of great dignity.

But the real revelation is Loki--Thom Hiddleston's take on the God of Mischief proves refreshing beyond words. One can safely say he steals the movie, mostly by successfully concealing his real intentions from virtually everyone--including the audience. He makes for one of the most interesting and compelling "villains" in any superhero film yet--on par with (but nowhere near identical to)Heath Ledger's take on The Joker.

My bottom line--not quite as good as the first Iron Man. Very close, though.

Burn This (Review)

2011-04-13T11:33:00.000-07:00

Spoilers ahoy!

Los Angeles' Mark Taper forum makes a lovely venue for a play. A thrust stage (i.e. the audience on three sides) surrounded by a semi-circle of seats, so everyone can see the actors faces and hear pretty much every word. Last night, I had the great good fortune to see a production of Lanford Wilson's Burn This.

As it happens, I'd seen this show on Broadway a quarter century ago. Whether that makes my reaction clearer or distorted remains an excellent question.

The play follows four characters as they react to the death of a fifth, Robbie. Anna, his roommate and sometimes dance partner, we meet first--taking her first cigarette since college. Soon after her sometimes-lover Burton shows up, a successful screenwriter. Next comes Larry, Anna's other roommate, a archly witty gay man who works in advertising. Then--enter Pale. Robbie's death may have have lit a match, but Pale's arrival puts that flame to a fuse. Lives proceed to explode from the moment he enters, drunk and far too early in the morning, still working out his grief over not only his brother's pointless death but his own seemingly-pointless life.

Pale talks like he's unwinding half-drunk at a bar following a sixteen-hour work day, amidst plenty of personal issues bubbling to the surface. He shatters personal defenses, almost by reflex. He startles with his areas of knowledge and taste--including his love of the ocean, the way he enjoys watching large fires, the time he stayed on a pier during a hurricane (which evidently ruined roller coasters for him forever). But more than that, he wears on his sleeve exactly what Anna herself feels down to the marrow but denies. She, like Pale, is in pain. She feels unattached to others, a failure at her art, in little or no control over anything in her life.

She describes having to stay overnight at Robbie's parents' house, sleeping in a nephew's room where he'd pinned butterflies collected earlier that day. Awakening in the middle of the night, she realizes the butterflies aren't dead yet!

Perfect metaphor for Anna as well as Pale--meant to fly but pinned alive to a wall. Little wonder they feel a connection so soon. Even less wonder that connection frightens, upsets, bewilders them both. Numbness has its attractions, not least the muting of pain. But no pain means no ecstasy. To be numb is to be barely alive, to survive and nothing else. Yet the flood of new feelings will hurt as well as exhilerate. Like all supremely valuable things, actual living (as opposed to mere survival) costs.

The Mark Taper production (still playing, and I do recommend it) itself feels like an LA version of NYC rather than the real thing. Granted that cannot help but be subtle, and if I hadn't lived in New York it might never have registered. Brooks Ashmanskas as Larry does an admirable job--a kind of not-too-acid-tongued Greek Chorus who finds himself part of the drama (or comedy--this is a funny play, that bears repeating). In this at least I can say his casting was actually better than on Broadway, simply because he's a little older and so his actions more realistic, his situation more in tune with what others say (and certainly makes a certain zinger in the last scene hit home). Ken Barnett as Burton frankly seemed miscast--too young to be such a successful screenwriter, not numb enough nor sufficiently cynical. To be sure he has probably the single hardest role in the play. But his physicality proved a strange choice, including a tendency to "act with his hands" instead of simply talking (this popped up now and then with the rest of the cast as well). Very little physical or vocal precision, alas, in this production.

Zabryna Guevara and Adam Rothemberg play the leads, upon whom most of the play depends. If we don't believe in them, the story won't work. We do. The former falls a little short of the deep energy Anna demands, but that comes down to her not managing to be a great actress. She is quite good in the role, but doesn't quite match the energy of her Pale. He gives the best performance out of four quite good ones, showing us the swirl of fascinating contradictions that are Pale--enough to fascinate. These are two difficult roles, both communicating in very affected (but different) ways. If they only barely manage to nail Anna and Pale, let us not forget they do manage it--a feat only genuinely good actors could accomplish.

The War Between The States

2011-04-12T08:50:00.000-07:00

Strong opinions ahead.

It is very American for it The Civil War, as if no one else had ever had one--or at least none of any importance. Today marks the one hundred fiftieth anniversary of the official first shots of that terrible yet weirdly glorious conflict. Actually other skirmishes happened before then, just as battles continued after Appomattox. We like to simplify things like that. Not just Americans--all of us. Still, when cannons fired on Fort Sumpter everyone knew it had come to war. So in a way the popular idea was right.

Curiously (I am far from the first to point this out) we as a nation focus much more on our Civil War than upon the Revolution that created us. Pundits talk a lot about the Founding Fathers, but for the most part Thomas Jefferson is not as well-known as Robert E. Lee, nor Alexander Hamilton as familiar as Nathan Bedford Forrest, any more than Josiah Bartlet is more famous than General "Spoons" Butler. Some reasons remain obvious, at least if you enjoy history. Washington, Adams, Franklin etc. lived in an age wildly different from our own, before the Victorian middle class shaped our culture into the template we now know. The battles of the earlier conflict look messier, less clear-cut than Antitem, Gettysburg, Richmond or New Orleans (quick quiz--Why do we have a aircraft carrier named Saratoga?)

Maybe a more vivid reason lies in the issues, though. Fundamentally, what led our ancestors into a five-year bloodbath of brother against brother remains unresolved. Nothing shows this more than the efforts of Confederate Apologists. Listening to these folks, one would think the wrong side won. That maybe slavery wasn't even a major institution in the Southern states, and even if it was nobody really cared that much about it--not even the slaves. State's rights, their argument goes, led to the war. The sovereignty of the states crushed by invading armies of a swollen Federal government. Usually this argument comes with hints or outright claims that Washington DC continues its nefarious efforts to squash the freedom embodied by the gray uniform and the famous battle flag of the Army of North Virginia (the "stars and bars").

Every word of this remains nonsense.

At least the Confederate states themselves didn't engage in such deceit. They came out and said they were fighting for the right to own slaves--that was the "State Right" they longed to defend with bullet and bayonet. In the CSA Constitution the right to own slaves was made even more secure than the right to free speech or trial by jury. More than one state in their equivalent of the Declaration of Independence outright proclaimed the superiority of the white race and defense of slavery as their reasons to take up arms. Indeed, the only reason a Confederate Army could be organized so quickly was because in the wake of John Brown's raid private militia sprung up all over the south, specifically to shed blood should anyone ever again try and free their human property--property they tortured and raped with impunity.

We might recall that Jefferson Davis decried the Emancipation Proclamation as one of the most evil acts in the sinful history of mankind. True, he lived and died long before the Holocaust, but consider--he knew all about the Spanish Inquisition, about the burning of witches and massacres with which our history is strewn. Yet he put ending the purchase and sale of human beings in the same category.

Southern Apologists don't like to think their ancestors were the bad guys. The well-recorded heroism and ofttimes gallantry of Confederate soldiers lets them weave a comfortable dream of the Lost Cause, allowing them the illusion that cause was a just one. It was not. The Confederacy existed to protect slavery. Its leadership knew that. Among their dreams were those of empire, of conquering Mexico and maybe extending their territories as far as Brazil--all in the efforts to acquire power and more slaves with which to fuel those dreams. Many Southerners showed themselves honorable as well as brave, not only able in combat but very ethical in conduct. Likewise it would be foolish to call every Union soldier an idealized crusader for personal liberty. But when we think of reasons for the fight, the actual and legal causes for which those armies marched and all that blood splashed across so many battlefields, then a clear truth comes out.

In the American Civil War, the good guys won and the bad guys lost. Had the Confederacy survived, that would have been an atrocity. Efforts for over a century following to preserve the heart of that idea--made so vividly clear in the KKK, in Jim Crow laws, in lynchings as public spectacle and in using Robert E. Lee's battle flag as an icon for racism (grossly unfair, but then Hilter appropriated the swastika)--show how vital that victory.

A century and a half after the South went to war (they fired the first shot) to keep black men and women in chains, a black man sits in the Oval Office. Methinks even Frederick Douglas would be shocked and pleased. But a loud minority still react to his skin color first and foremost. Many who do don't realize it, but at the same time they hold him to a different standard. The ridiculous "Birther" conspiracies are a case in point. So too the belief that Congress was setting up indoctrination centers a la the Hitler Youth, that Obama would use the Swine Flu scare and the Copenhagen Accords to negate the Constitution and create some bizarre Muslim Communist regime hauling off gun owners to FEMA detention camps. Look up all this gibberish. It is still there. On YouTube one guy was recommending what ammo to use to kill UN troops a year and a half ago when "they" come to take your guns. In this guy's comments section he indignantly denied he was encouraging violence.

Therein lies some of the weird doublethink at the heart of our nation's darkness. Such minds still see the Civil War as a conflict in which the virtuous (i.e. white chistian males enslaving blacks) were treacherously defeated. Like Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan, in their heart of hearts they still think the bad guys won World War Two as well.

But on this, the anniversary of the War Between the States, let us not forget the other side. We as a people fought and bled and died to break the chains of slaves. Many resisted, some furiously, and even the best of us failed to succeed at the highest goals. Yet, we acted. Likewise, in the century and more that followed we as a nation strove to banish our own worst impulses. So much has changed! When I was a child, marriage between Black and White was a crime. Today, the child of a mixed marriage was elected President. Black men and women continue to be hailed as celebrities, even as among the most beautiful individuals on Earth.

We should be proud of that. But if we accept and honor what is glorious in our history (which is much) then honest behooves us to accept the ignoble, the shame-worthy, the crimes. Many Americans donned a uniform and wielded a gun, marching into harm's way to free the slave. And many others did the same to defend those chains, that whip, the sacred notion that some people are the equivalent of farm animals.

Honor one. Accept and atone for the other. That's what I think we should do on this, the anniversary of our Civil War.

Notes on Future Project

2011-04-10T08:50:00.000-07:00

Tentatively titled Winterisle, I'm assembling notes for a vampire novel set in 1836. It has to be 1836 because that year Walpurgis fell on a full moon. Will be awhile. For one thing I have another novel to complete first! But meanwhile some research is afoot!

You see, readers of the novel will find bread crumbs of other literary works scattered through the chapters. Two ships visit the island of the title, for example. One is the Grace of God, which plays a crucial part in the Wilkie Collins novel Amadale. Second will be HMS Wessex, named for the semi-fictional county where Thomas Hardy set so many of his stories. Likewise one character will mention a desire to go to Milton, Elizabeth Gaskell's version of Manchester in her work North and South. Two of the main characters are children of Henry Tilney and Catherine Morland from Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen. Others include relatives of persons mentioned in short stories by H.P.Lovecraft and Edgar Allan Poe, a reference to a school from Jane Eyre, the son of a two minor characters from another Austen novel, a name mentioned by Arthur Conan Doyle in one of Sherlock Holmes' unchronicled adventures...and so on.

Not quite sure what to call this kind of story, although some antecedents come to mind. One of these is Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Another is Kim Newman's Anno Dracula. Yet another is Evil at Pemberly House by Philip Jose Farmer and Win Scott Eckert (Doc Savage's daughter inherits the estate where Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet lived--with relatives of Tarzan present).

Mind you, I'm also delving into some material that is not in the public domain, hence given the form of hints and/or tributes. One such is the title. Another is one of the three major characters, whose name and appearance give evidence of a link to an extremely popular series of contemporary novels that have been (and are now being) made into hugely successful films. Plus a nod to some favorite television programs.

Fair amount of research yet to do, which so far has proven both fun as well as helpful. Details lead to other details. Specifics offer new ideas. Just like cooking--one ingredient suggests another, all of which need to simmer in my imagination.

(And yes, I've included references to Dickens.)

Red Riding Hood (Review)

2011-03-22T14:11:00.000-07:00

Spoilers Ahoy!

With my taste for myth and nightmare, mingled with sexuality, little wonder I eagerly awaited the film Red Riding Hood. Several members of the cast inspired hope, from Amanda Seyfried to Gary Oldman and Julie Christie. Now I've seen the finished film, what is my reaction?

Mixed.

The good in this film is very good. Apart from the gorgeous imagery, and a genuinely compelling musical score, some performances reach the level of wonderful. More, the plot--essentially a supernatural mystery--is quite fun. On the other hand, the writer of this dialogue should be forced to copy by hand the works of Caryl Churchill, Stephen King, John Ajvide Lindqvist, Ray Bradbury--anyone who knows how to write dialogue. Maybe it would rub off. We can hope!

Another problem. Given my love of history, I'm not very forgiving of wild historical inaccuracy. Like the fact all these medieval peasants used hair conditioner. The multi-cultural knights come to hunt the werewolf (and any witches that might be around) would be okay--were they explained. When the local priest (Lucas Haas, in an underused role frankly) says he's sent for Father Soloman (a famed witch hunter) and that he'd be there tomorrow, all I could think was "How do you know that? What, did he send you a text?" Mind you, all that would be a lot more forgivable were the whole thing more stylized. As the film appears now, it seems either too off-kilter for naturalism, yet too naturalistic to be a mythical world of werewolves and walking archetypes from the unconscious.

By far the biggest problem, though, remains a not-uncommon one. Simply, the two male leads who vie for the the heart of our female heroine, are boring. Unforgivable. An old acting coach of mine once said "When you become an actor, you sign a pact saying you're not allowed to be ordinary or dull any more." Several members of the cast demonstrate this truth with great skill. But instead of genuinely interesting, compelling characters in those roles we see a pair of male models--who suspiciously resemble Edward Cullen and Damon Salvatore. Minus the charisma. That one is supposed to be a blacksmith and the other a wood cutter yet both have slender frames makes for one more detail that yanks me out of the film and back into my seat in the theater.

Too bad. Most (albeit not all) of the potential of this film bled away. You can still enjoy it, especially in the right mood, but there are way too many drops of mediocre amidst the fine wine and juicy meat. Make that a drinking horn or two, rather than drops.

My version of LMI

2011-03-20T14:10:00.000-07:00

Elsewhere online, plenty of debate swirls around two film versions of the same novel--Let The Right One In by John Ajvide Lindqvist. Me, I loved the book and both films. But then my mind went to the Japanese novel Ringu, which became a series of successful Japanese films. And then a Korean film. Plus an American movie, The Ring. Last I heard a Hindu version was in the works...

So what if a third version of Lindqvist's book were filmed? Here's how I'd do it. Be warned--if you haven't read the book or seen at least one of the movies the following probably won't make a lot of sense.

The Right One (based on the same Jim Morrisey lyric as the novel and first film) would be set in a fictional West Island suburb of Montreal called Noirville.

To distinguish things, I'm naming my two central characters Orrin and Elle. No, I've never been to Montreal but have read quite a bit about it for a variety of reasons. The West Island is a more 'rural' area and is somewhat heavily Roman Catholic. With that in mind I'd say Orrin goes to a Catholic school run by nuns. More, I'd have him the child of a mixed Anglo-French/Protestant-Catholic marriage that has failed and the bullies would target him in some sense along those lines. Why? Because it seems to me a major theme in the story is they way we refuse to find emotional connections with each other yet also how we do find them. Ethnic and religious conflict seem a good way to illustrate that without having to go overboard. Not that such would form a major plot point, but it would be part of the background and context.

My version would include the police detective character from the book, someone who more-or-less accidentally interacts with all the major characters at one time or another. Said encounters would make up something like a Greek Chorus to the story--not overtly but as a bit of punctuation. He'd be talking to Orrin's class at the start of the tale. Later he'd meet the couple who'd later be destroyed by Elle, gently warn them about driving while drinking. As killings by the so-called West Island Ripper became known, he'd appear on television, etc.

Elle's helper, whom I'd call Harmon, is a bit different from either Hakkan or Thomas. I'd like to hint he is a priest, perhaps a pedophile but also a man who has lost his faith then found it again in the service of this genuine supernatural creature. More, I'd like to show Elle as exhausted by his attentions and expectations--he doesn't see her after all but a kind of symbol.

Would I deal with Elle's gender? Depends. Given my druthers, yes. And I'd also like to include Zombie Harmon. My concern would be time, but if this weren't a motion picture it might work. Let us assume it a four hour cable miniseries and then we can go with that. But the whole Zombie thing would need to be streamlined a fair amount--its major dramatic purpose to indicate just how troubled and alone Elle's existence has been.

Actually, a fair amount of the story would be told from Elle's viewpoint. Would love to see a camera shot of her 'landing' at the Hospital window, especially from her POV. And that is also how I'd do the pool massacre--with Elle watching her dear friend Orrin then reacting with such incredible violence at seeing what was happening. Rather than stay with Orrin, I'd have the camera see with Elle's eyes as she destroyed each of the bullies--their terrified faces, the blood spattering everywhere, her leaving one of them alive because of youth and innocence, then plunging into the water to retrieve Orrin who has lost consciousness.

Cut to the aftermath, to the puzzling forensic evidence, the detective trying to figure out what to tell the missing boy's mother...

And somewhere, maybe in a hidden corner of an abandoned windmill where we saw Elle go after leaving the apartment building, we see the steamer trunk. Within it, Elle holds the soaking wet, seemingly dead body of Orrin in her arms. She wakes as the sun sets. Then, do does Orrin, his eyes catlike for a moment. He sees Elle--and smiles.

Just wanted to get that off my chest.

My First Book!

2011-02-28T11:37:00.000-08:00

It is done! My very first book has been published and is available right now. Caloo calay! Oh happy day!

The Annotated Carmilla hopes to be an authoritative guide to Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu's vampire classic, the 1872 novella which was his last major work. In its pages, you will find answers to virtually any question that might be asked about this work. Where, for example, is Styria? When does the story take place? How much did the narrator's father have as an income? (The answer to that one is a bit tricky, since rent in those days was much, much less--but food and clothing and other necessities cost much much more.) What are all those books mentioned at the end? Are they real? (Yes.) Exactly what is a hippogriff? An entrucheon? A gourvernante? A myrmidon? What does the name "Karnstein" mean?

Mind you, not all questions have an answer, but in that case I tried to point them out and offer a variety of possible answers. Exactly what happened to Laura's mother? We don't know exactly, although it seems pretty clear she was much younger than her husband. How precisely does Laura feel about Carmilla? Carmilla about Laura? A less obvious question--who is Laura telling this story to? There are hints to that one actually.

Next--finish the pilot for End Of The Line, then resume work on my novel Baneworth, an erotic re-telling of Varney The Vampyre!

The Adjustment Bureau (Review)

2011-02-13T16:00:00.000-08:00

Spoilers Ahoy!

Got to see a free screening of this movie, and let me say I was impressed. By now you yourself have seen the trailers. If you haven't, it is easy enough to find. Just check out YouTube.

So what is The Adjustment Bureau all about? Well, one can simply describe the plot. David Norris (Matt Damon) is a New York Congressman who looked on the verge of winning a Senate seat when some silly shenanigans from his past (and they were just silly) derailed the campaign. As he watched himself go down to defeat, he went to practice his concessions speech--and meets Elise (Emily Blunt) purely by accident. They click. Do they ever! Not least because she sees through every little white lie that comes out of his mouth. Going back to his campaign HQ, he doesn't give the prepared speech but an impromptu, humorous one from the heart. It instantly revives his political career.

Forward a few months. It seems some strange men in hats are quietly planning something important, but one of them fails. He doesn't make Norris spill his coffee in time. As a result, David doesn't miss his bus and again meets Elise, who gives him her phone number. When he gets to work, eyes alight and a bounce in his stop, David sees something shocking. And it rocks his world.

He sees agents of The Adjustment Bureau at work. These are the men in hats. Except they don't seem to be men, not really. Some call them angels, among other things, and their boss The Chairman. It seems there is a plan. Later, a high ranking agent (Terrence Stamp) spells it out bluntly. You do not have free will, he says. You have the appearance of free will. Sure, you get to choose your clothes and what you eat, but the big stuff is something you can't be trusted with. Twice before the agents withdrew, thinking maybe mankind could handle things on their own. Both were utter disasters, the last one ending after the Cuban Missile Crisis nearly wiped out everything on Earth. Norris is part of the plan. A good plan. One that nudges humanity forward, away from their own worst impulses. More, Norris is an important part of the plan, destined to have the chance to do great and good things.

But not with Elise. With her, his part in the plan fails. The plan fails.

Yet he loves her, with the kind of utter devotion that inspires songs and great deeds. Not being at all selfish, yet also a bit reckless and daring, Norris faces a terrible dilemna. A cheap way to explore that would be what the trailer kinda/sorta hints at--one long chase scene. No. What the filmmakers did here proved far more interesting.

Which is not to say there aren't chases. There are, and very interesting ones too.

But instead of a long action sequence, we get a compelling struggle between the best aspects of everyone involved. I cannot emphasize enough this movie has no villains. Everyone is trying to do their level best to make this world a better place, willing to sacrifice much for that end. Yet what they cannot sacrifice is the crux of the film. Even if you do something for the genuine Higher Good, what kind of person doesn't feel guilt for pain and damage and unhappiness caused, no matter what the payoff?

The whole thing is like a really good, really high budget Twilight Zone episode. Or maybe The Outer Limits.

What is the movie about? Never mind the plot. This movie explores fate, and taking control of one's fate. It is about growth and free will and what we can sometimes be, what we only occasionally are.

Cedar Rapids (Review)

2011-02-02T17:00:00.000-08:00

Spoilers ahoy!

Got to see a free movie last night, titled Cedar Rapids. Essentially a "fish out of water" story, it follows insurance agent Tim Lippe (Ed Helms) who frankly needs to get out. He doesn't know it, but he does. Having lived his whole life in the little town of Brown Valley, circumstances force him to represent his firm at a convention. Never even having flown before or stayed in a hotel, Tim finds himself in the big city.

Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Had it been New Orleans, he'd've died. What happens instead is culture shock, sin, exhiliration, friendship, trouble, desperate fear and--in the end--triumph.

Tim finds himself with two roommates at the convention: Ronald, the first African American Tim has ever met, a straight arrow workaholic by circumstance rather than preference, not at all bitter about it and in a nice piece of stunt casting (he's played by Isiah Whitlock Jr.) a huge fan of HBO's series The Wire. Then there's Dean (John C. Reilly)--very crass, very fun-loving, very loudmouthed and trying very hard to forget the end of his marriage. Along the way they're joined by Joan (Anne Heche)--a mischievous housewife who sells insurance on the side and considers the convention a little vacation away from her life.

A good friend of mine came along to see the flick, and didn't care for it. She saw the story as one of peer preassure, in which a man with morals and integrity gets pressured into doing all sorts of wrong things. Nor is she wrong, but that ignores the third act. Tim comes across as a genuinely nice guy. More than anything this comes across early during a little celebration for a co-worker who's done extremely well. An obvious choice as Tim gazes as the cake with this other guy's face on it would be annoyance, even anger. What we see is envy--nothing mean, just a simple desire to be as good, as successful, to deserve what he regards as an honor. Later, Joan calls Tim as a hero. He sees working insurance as something glorious, a sacred duty to put people's lives back together in the wake of disaster. She says he actually makes it sound cool to be an insurance agent.

Such a benign, simple way of looking the world just begs to be challenged. Not least because the guy also radiates naivete and lack of experience. Kinda helps make it easy for him. If Tim didn't endure a front end collision with reality, there'd be no story!

He has his first drink. And another. Then another. Cheats on his girlfriend with a married woman. Uses the pool after hours! A downward spiral. He even does something much, much worse--something that makes him feel soiled and depressed enough to accept an invitation from a nice hooker to her uncle's (very rough) party. That's where he gets beaten up.

From then on, the climax of the story proceeds to what my friend I fear ignored. Tim, in meeting his new circle of friends, finally loosens up. He oh-so-needed it, even if he stumbled and got hurt. Yet in the end he gave them something, too. They weren't using him, but liked him. When the chips are down, they help him turn the tables on some bad guys and do what they're supposed to do, what we all are supposed to do.

Stand up. Tell the truth. Do what you can for your friends, your neighbors, your colleagues, your clients. Grow a pair. Learn from your mistakes.

I laughed and smiled. The ending moved me a bit. By the end I not only liked these characters, but respected them. Some of it proved a little over the top for me. And the ending felt like a retread of Its A Wonderful Life. But no real complaints. I liked it. No a huge amount, because it wasn't quite as deep or complex as I'd like. Wouldn't mind seeing it again.

Vampire Guest Blogging

2011-01-25T08:09:00.000-08:00

I've been guest blogging quite a bit over at vampires.com and thought to share some of what I've written there:

Who Should Play Carmilla? is like many of my titles over there pretty self-explanatory. Quite simply, a digression over who might play one of the first (and most interesting) literary undead.
Lets Scare Jessica to Death is a short review of a mini-classic, a 1971 film that deserves even more of a reputation than it enjoys.
Varney the Vampyre describes the (in)famous 'penny dreadful' that nevertheless kinda/sorta created the trope of the Reluctant Vampire.
Carmilla in Chicago refers to a brand-spanking-new adaptation of Le Fanu's last work, which just opened on stage.
Lemora is about another small cinematic classic, the uber-cheap but powerful and disturbing movie set in Prohibition.
The Worst Vampire Movie of All Time. You have been warned.
Gumshoes of the Night all about vampire detectives.
Vampire Wish List for 2011 (pretty self-explanatory seems to me)
Isle of the Dead, a review of the best vampire movie without a vampire. Ever.
Science Fiction Undead, all about how sometimes folks blend vampires with science fiction.

Legal Rights and Civil Liberties (Politics)

2011-01-21T08:45:00.000-08:00

Strong opinions follow.

Being American and living in my homeland, I hear a lot of folks talk about "rights." Specifically rights in terms of freedom, liberty, etc. Like most of Americans, my upbringing echoed with that word. We fought wars to protect our rights. No greater political sin exists than to threaten those rights. Enemies of our rights are enemies of all.

Increasingly, what I've heard and read is that the greatest foe to our rights is the government. The less government, the better has become a widely-held motto, etched with passionate acid into hearts and souls.

Within the last couple of years, though, I've come to question even using the word "rights" as sloppy, vague, and too often an excuse for some very disreputable ideas. A freshman Senator from Utah insisting the government has no business outlawing slave labor. Former presidential candidate Ron Paul going on and on about how the Civil Rights Act was wrong. More, I've read and heard people make a really stupid claim, a popular but frankly absurd one:

Namely, that rights exist in nature and government exists to take them away.

Let me be frank. This notion is excrement. In real-world, practical terms, life without government ends up the most brutal kind of chaos. Simply look around at places where civil government breaks down, where no police and military and courts and lawmakers and a bureaucracy to support them exist. Freedom indeed does run rampant there--freedom to loot, rape, murder and enslave. For those with sufficient strength, weapons and ruthlessness such times and places can be a kind of utopia. Those without have the freedom to try and run away to hide.

The whole idea of legal rights and civil liberties (a far more specific terminology, and one I prefer for exactly that reason) arose from government. Freedom of speech in practical terms means laws protect that freedom. Trial by jury means a system of government exists, with rules and procedures. Long, weary centuries of Faith-inspired bloodshed gave rise to Freedom of Religion, which consists in many ways of government protecting the legal rights and civil liberties of religious minorities.

Contrary to the rantings of some, government serves an excellent and supremely wonderful purpose. It is an institution (one of many) that allows this lovely thing we call civilization to live. Perfect? Certainly not! Like all institutions--the Church, Labor Unions, Corporations, Formal Education--government requires oversight to work at all well. It even functions as oversight to itself as well as other institutions--and vice versa. But in and of itself government is not the enemy. The hundreds of thousands of government employees are not in fact all sadists and sociopaths (I know people who actually preach this nonsense). More, just because the government does something doesn't make that action totally evil.

We may (and do) disagree on precisely what the government should do. After all, we disagree over which sports team should win and whether Sookie should choose Bill or Eric. But when we view such a crucial part of our lives, such a necessary institution with contempt, we're making heaps of problems for ourselves.

It bears repeating, more explicitly. Legal rights and civil liberties were created by government. Without government, for all practical purposes they don't exist. Take away government and they vanish.

Nor (to answer a very silly objection already encountered) does this mean government can or will do things according to a whim. I'm genuinely curious about where this idea comes from. My suspicion is that it arises from a lack of understanding. We don't really know what all the rules and regulations are in a society as large and complex as our own. None of us do. Coming up against something that baffles us runs aground of a deep reluctance to admit our own ignorance. For a certain mindset, admitting they don't understand is as unthinkable as trusting strangers know what they are doing. At all. What is left then? To assume the rules don't actually make any sense and were created "just because."

How likely is that really? Sure, now and then somebody somewhere is going to just make a best guess that'll be so wrong as to be laughable. Or tragic. History is full of that, and plenty of horror stories lived out as a result. Yet most of the time, reasons actually exist for doing things a certain way. Good, bad, indifferent--there are reasons. Likewise legislatures who do things on a whim--honestly, I can't think of single example of that.

Mind you, I also strongly suspect some folks are projecting their own sins unto government. The supremely self-centered cannot imagine others entering public service for any motive other than greed. People filled with the urge to tell everyone else how to live their lives (while never ever having to listen to any advice from them) presume that is what motivates every single person in government.

Pretty immature, really.

How I Would Have Done the Star Wars Prequels

2011-01-19T05:03:00.000-08:00

Way back when, before I grew my first beard or (truth be told) dated my first girl or had my very first job, George Lucas gave me a wonderful gift. Star Wars. My siblings and I insisted our parents go this flick. They didn't much care for science fiction, but came back with grins on their faces.

Good times. Good times.

So maybe you can imagine how thrilled my soul felt as word came out that after years and years a brand new Star Wars trilogy was on the way. To the left is the first poster I ever saw. Oh, the pathos of that image--an innocent little boy with that darkness in his future...

Words cannot express my disappointment with the final result. I saw The Phantom Menace at a discount price and felt myself robbed. Never again did I dole out any of my hard-earned money to see the rest of the prequels. In time, I rented them. Reluctantly. Okay, they proved better than Episode I, but really isn't that as low a bar as one can imagine?

Rather than whine about what's wrong with these movies (which has been done in a far more funny, scathing and exhaustive manner elsewhere) but rather suggest how I might have done it differently.

Which makes for pretty good evidence of my arrogance. A fair cop. Mea culpa and all that.

Let us start with a threat to the Galactic Republic, namely the return of the Dark Lords of the Sith after a thousand years' absence. If Jedi are mystic Knights supposed to be cool, calm and collected then how about the Sith acting as their polar opposites? Passionate, intense, hot-blooded and fierce. Consider though--these hardly make someone evil in and of themselves. One thing that immediately pops into my mind is that two Sith be the center of an incredible love story.

So let me begin with an original character, Darth Shado. Imagine a seer of the Dark Side, one not very popular among his fellow Sith because he doesn't hate the Jedi, merely disapproves of them. He sees them as an order of eunuchs increasingly shaping the galaxy in their own image--sterile, cold, rigid. A classic conflict between Dionysian and Apollonian forces. Amid some military campaign in which the Sith and their allies seeks come coup against the Republic, Shado confronts a very able Jedi Knight named Gideah Lann. Okay, just for fun let's cast them shall we? Jonathan Rhys Myers as Darth Shado, with Kate Beckinsale as Gideah Lann, who starts off as the perfect Jedi--coolly efficient, ever-in-control, seeing things from a broad perspective only--and disapproving of the interest some other Jedi are taking in romance, in personal relationships. Like Yoda and others, she approves of the super-ascetic lifestyle that has evolved over the millennia--until she meets and falls in love with someone who's had visions of her since the Force awoke in him. Yep. Darth Shado. I'd build a chunk of the prequels around their love story, in a dark parallel with Princess Leia/Han Solo. Each would actually try to persuade each other to defect, with their growing love a sign that each side has a point.

Clearly I'm tossing aside the whole "Only Two Sith" bit, in favor of a more diverse and interesting enemy. Since Palpatine is canon, we must show him as the Sith hiding in plain sight, a Senator who rises in political power amidst the conflict of the Clone Wars. But rather than a stupid war between clones and robots, I'd have a conflict between people--perhaps several more aggressive races using cloning to vastly increase their numbers, threatening the stability of the Republic. Attempting to intervene, the Jedi (including Gideah Lann and the young Obi Wan Kenobi) only set off the conflict earlier than anyone expected.

This sets up a need for more warriors trained in the Force. Obi Wan meets the fighter pilot Annakin Skywalker mid-battle. In time they become great friends, and the Jedi starts to train his great pal in the ways of the Force. But what we see is a tragic mismatch of teacher and student. Annakin has questions (the same questions that Darth Shadow asks Gideah) but Obi Wan lacks satisfying answers. In the heat of battle, Annakin turns to the Dark Side, to his rage and hatred in order to survive.

In the end, Shado and Gideah begin to see eye-to-eye, perhaps believing they can find a way to work together, offering a possibility of ending the age-old dispute between Sith and Jedi. But they are destroyed along with most of a world in a massive use of weaponry led by now-Admiral Skywalker, commanding elite troops under the direct control of Senate Lord President Palpatine. Kenobi tries to stop him, and in the end wounds his once-great friend so terribly he ends up in that black suit.

Many Jedi and Sith are now dead. Palpatine notes the Jedi are now actively intervening with the war effort and demands they swear loyalty to the Lord President. Few agree, and are outlawed. Kenobi and Yoda receive a last recorded message from Gideah, a Force Vision of what they must do (actually from Darth Shado). They meet Annakin's wife, who believes her husband dead. She is returning to her home world of Alderaan, deeply sorry her husband never knew she was expecting their child. Kenobi accompanies her while Yoda heeds the Vision and goes to Dagobah.

All around them, the war continues, now one of conquest. Lord President Palpatine has been declared Emperor, and outlawed the Jedi Order. News of a new and terrifying warrior named Darth Vader hunting down the Jedi reaches Obi Wan and the widow Skywalker. He assures her things will change. They always do. We must have hope.

The End. For now.

Any commentary is more than welcome. Just glad to get that off my chest.

Writing Tips

2011-01-16T14:13:00.000-08:00

(My apologies for taking so long between posts, but honestly I've been busy -- among other things getting diagnosed with diabetes as well as working on End Of The Line. Mea culpa.)

A dear friend and I ended up discussing writing the other day. She enjoys my blogs (here and at vampires.com). More she recently got back into writing herself. Given that she asked, I offered some "tricks of the trade" and she suggested I write them down. So...

Let me begin with acknowledging loads and loads of writers have their own such tricks. Many would probably not agree with mine at all. Or approve of some, disapprove of others. Fine. Kindly take what follows as advice only -- consider what I say, then accept or dismiss as you see fit.

First, and this one I see violated time and time again, avoid the passive voice. Read nearly any textbook, business report or form letter for examples of the passive voice. Ditto encyclopedia entries, legal documents of nearly any kind, and far too many works of fiction. "The cat was found by Millie" instead of "Millie found the cat." Nine times out of ten (or more) the passive voice creates boredom. Always? No. In truth, the passive voice can be a stylistic trick, one that creates a powerful effect. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" is in the active voice but the very next clause of that famous quote "that all men are created equal" is passive, yet rings like a bell in the annals of history. Examine it closely, you'll even see why it proved so effective, as well as why it more usually does not. The passive voice gramatically shifts responsibility for the verb away from the subject, often onto the object. A cat is found rather than Millie did the finding. In the Declaration of Independence, the "all men..." clause refers to some kind of Creator, whether natural or supernatural (a fair number of our Founding Fathers were not Christians). So the passive voice nearly always takes focus away from the subject of the sentence, the main character as it were.

Secondly, try to avoid the verb "to be." Which sounds daft. How more fundamental can you get than the verb that denotes existence? And isn't that the very heart of Shakespeare's most famous monologue? Yes and no. "To be or not to be..." functions as a metaphor. In context, Hamlet muses not about existence so much as life versus death, pondering over suicide in the face of life's travails. Kindly note also my recommendation's actual words--"try to avoid" not "never use." I encourage you to try and see for yourself how much more interesting your prose becomes when avoiding that verb. Try to banish it altogether, just as an experiment. Judge the results for yourself. Quite simply, hardly a more dull verb exists in the English language--or at least more over-used to the point of boredom. My own writing improved greatly after taking on this little rule of thumb (not axiom, not holy writ--just a rule of thumb).

Third, I cannot recommend enough varying the length and complexity of sentences. What do I mean? Glad you asked! Consider the simple sentence. Now consider what English teachers call the compound sentence and how useful such things can be. Finally, we really should think on the compound-complex sentence, and while we're at it try to remember how often you come across such things in texts difficult to follow (like academic papers for instance). See what I did? When mentioning each type of sentence type I used an example of same!

Eye iz sew klevur (we all know not to misspell words or mangle grammar right?).

I was also (hopefully) demonstrating why variations generally work better than repetition. A Compound-Complex takes more concentration to understand than a Simple. Putting two or more together might end up beautiful and more accurate, but requires a lot more labor on the part of the reader. Which can work brilliantly! Remember Bilbo's speech at the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring? "I don't know half of you as well as I should like and like less than half of you as well as I should." You can almost see his birthday guests blink a few times. They don't say anything, trying instead to work out whether most of them were just insulted or not. (Yeah, they were.) Now imagine sentences of that complexity piled one on top of the other. Problems. Especially for the reader going through your work for the very first time.

Yet another consideration regarding sentence length--the rhythm of your story. Songs rarely begin with gigantic swelling notes. Listen to particularly stirring songs to hear what I mean. "I Dreamed a Dream" from Les Miserables, for example. Or "Pity The Child" from Chess. Both start slow and soft, building to louder and more complex moments, then returning to quiet in order to give still greater crescendos later. Writers methinks should use a similar model in terms of their own rhythms. Lacking notes and orchestras, we use words. More than words. Sentences, clauses, vocabulary, the passive versus the active voice, etc.

Lastly, a few words about letters with which words begin. Call me picky (go ahead--really, I don't mind) but one major goal in my writing remains readability. Anything that helps achieve that remains a valuable tool. Towards that end, I wrote myself two simple rules:

Never begin two adjacent sentences with words that begin with the same letter.
Never begin two adjacent paragraphs with words that begin with the same letter.

Kindly refer to the text of this blog as an example. Mind you, I did put this rule-of-thumb last, and for a reason. You wouldn't be wrong calling me picky. I am. But my own sense of how reading works, how the human eye picks up on lettering, how we keep our place and retain a memory of what we're reading lends me to think this a good idea. Certainly the opposite has the exact impact I hope to avoid. Reiterating the same capital letters over and over impedes readability. Usually.

Take my words as wisdom or as the eccentric ramblings of a pretentious scribe. Or both. Whatever helps you create the words and works dearest to your writer's heart.

Oh, and Happy New Year!

The King's Speech (Review)

2010-12-20T12:10:00.000-08:00

Spoilers ahoy!

One advantage remains unchallenged about living in Los Angeles--far more opportunities to see movies for free. Case in point: My own chance to see The King's Speech last week, followed by a fascinating Q&A with the film's screenwriter, David Seidler.

A bit of background for those who don't know (and judging by the reactions of my friends, that might be the majority). When King George V (Queen Victoria's grandson) died, his eldest son David became King under the name Edward VIII. But David didn't take his duties seriously at all, was actually something of a Nazi sympathizer, and insisted on marrying a woman who was twice divorced. This last was legally insurmountable at the time, so Edward VIII abdicated. Next in line lay his brother, Bertie, the Duke of York. Bertie, a shy man with a pronounced stutter, had no desire at all for the throne. Quite the opposite! But he also regarded it as his duty to the nation, a nation then on the road to the second world war. As George VI, he reigned during that war and eventually became a much-loved figure. His daughter Elizabeth is Queen of the United Kingdom today.

The movie deals with the relationship between Bertie (played by Colin Firth) and the man who became his voice coach--an Australian named Lionel Logue (played by Geoffrey Rush). Considered quite a radical for his time, Logue focused on the emotional reasons behind a stutter--much to his patient's displeasure and reluctance. As it happens, the more we glimpse of Bertie's childhood the more heroic he seems, the more we see him as potentially a great monarch and yet we ache that he might be forced into such a role. More subtly, we come to understand the quiet, reserved and fathoms-deep love between him and the woman who was first his Duchess then his Queen (played by Helena Bonham Carter). It is she who finds Logue and overcomes her husband's reluctance to see another damn specialist. Maybe it shows my age, but something about the portrayal of a love affair between a happily married middle-aged couple touches my heart.

Logue turns out to be charming, irreverent but respectful, and also to know what he is about. From the Q&A I was pleased to learn the director wanted historical accuracy if at all possible, down to ditching a nice subplot when evidence emerged weeks before filming began that its central tenet happened to be untrue. Logue himself presented far fewer problems, mostly because he didn't leave detailed notes of what he did during his sessions with the King. The screenwriter drew upon his own experiences as a stammerer who underwent treatment.

I will mention here that Colin Firth will almost certainly be nominated for an Oscar. He not only turns in a fine performance (when has he not?) but does so with great technical skill, both subtle and obvious. This is the kind of thing the Academy likes to award. That sounds cynical, doesn't it? But it makes sense, given how many extremely good performances dot movies each year. The ones that show some real flourish get the most attention, and understandably so. In this case, not only is there a technical matter of an almost-crippling stutter, but the way he has to spend so much of the film with a stiff upper lip, ramrod straight, formal and polite and yet half the time in something like emotional agony.

The whole cast does a splendid job. Geoffrey Rush almost effortlessly steals most films in which he appears simply by turning in such interesting, entertaining performances. Here we have no exception, save that Firth stands toe-to-toe with him. Amusingly, Derek Jacobi plays the Archbishop of Canterbury, a well-meaning but overly conventional man who disapproves of Logue--amusing because of course Jacobi gained fame playing another stuttering prince himself, in I, Claudius. Bonham Carter is likewise splendid as the gently courageous lady later known as the Queen Mum. Another amusing story was that the screenwriter had to get the real Queen Mum's permission to access what notes Logue left behind. She granted it, but only after her death because of the painful memories involved. She was in her eighties at the time and he thought he wouldn't have long to wait. Then she lived to be over a hundred!

Enough of fascinating trivia! How is the film? As might be obvious, I thought the whole thing both moving and charming, a portrait of friendship that allowed a quiet hero lead his people during the worst hours they ever knew. Having already won a slew of awards, I'm sure it will win many more. And will deserve every single one.

Violence and Drama

2010-12-17T10:43:00.000-08:00

(Some) spoilers ahoy!

One of my favorite t.v. shows is Criminal Minds, about a fictional unit of the FBI that does nothing but hunt down serial murderers. Actually, the FBI does have such a unit, but one a lot larger and less of a small elite team. Dramatic license and all that. I'm not complaining about that much. Helps to make a more dramatic story-telling format and all. Plenty of other absurdities in there as well--like the wonderful Dr. Reed whom I just don't believe as an FBI agent at all. The current season is introducing a new character, a trainee with a unique insight because her father was a serial killer, a fact with which she struggles every day (at one point she almost cried when admitting that, try as she might, she doesn't hate him). Good stuff, from a dramatic standpoint. From a reality one? No. Just like Clarice Starling would never, ever, under any circumstances have been allowed to work on the Buffalo Bill case. No way, no how. But Silence of the Lambs is a totally brilliant film that I love dearly.

But I came across an interesting interview today about the spinoff being developed, starring Forrest Whitaker, Richard Schiff and Janeane Garofalo (wow--talk about a dream cast!). Ms. Garofalo has mixed feelings. Loves to have a job, grateful in fact. But uneasy about a program that regularly depicts women being tortured and murdered.

With respect, I do believe she's missing the point. It all comes down to context. Depictions of something do not equate to endorsement. Not in and of themselves. Methinks she and anyone else would have an excellent case against a program (or movie, or book, or anything really) that treated the violence in what might as well be dubbed pornographically. If we the audience are meant to revel in the violence for its own sake, if the violence is portrayed so as to get us all worked up--that is very different from what Criminal Minds does.

Let me mention here I don't mind portrayals like that, necessarily. I loved both Kill Bill movies, and as my previous blog entry shows I adore the show Dexter. But both those films do more than celebrate the violence involved--they examine it, stirring up more feelings that simple joy at "taking care of business." Both explore the ambiguity of violence in what is after all a violent world (although not universally so).

Criminal Minds touches on that as well, barely.

Mostly, the show depicts serial killers as twisted human wrecks who need to be taken down, or at least neutralized. The violence is played not for excitement, but horror. We see the families of the victims, often in shock and dismay, as well as the sickened faces of those who confront the worst of what men do virtually every day. No two of them respond the same, and the complexity of their reactions helps make it a successful, gripping series of stories.

In fact, I'd say this show avoids what has been a trap for the genre ever since Silence of the Lambs came out--the tendency to glamorize serial killers. Yeah, Hannibal Lecter fascinates as well as horrifies, and in a weird sense we're almost on his side. But the human monsters the BAU confronts are never like that. They are at best pitifully warped souls, at worst the equivalent of mad dogs. People sometimes forget that memorable as Lecter is, the main character and spine of Silence is Clarice. Sir Anthony Hopkins even said at the time the movie is a love story--about how the courage and compassion of Clarice stirs love in this terrible human being who cannot feel pity or kindness. Without her, there is no story. Or at least no good one.

So it is on Criminal Minds. Whereas Dirty Harry might be an avenging icon of frontier justice in a modern world, the BAU team have more in common with Batman or Sherlock Holmes. Theirs is not a mission of violence or revenge. Rather they see themselves as guardians against chaos, who apply human genius against darkness threatening the innocent.

One episode in particular sticks in my mind, "The Uncanny Valley." The Unsub (UNidentified SUBject) has been kidnapping women to keep them drugged and dressed up like dolls. Not for any sexual reason, but as it turns out to substitute for the dolls her father took away. Those dolls were all she had, what she needed to make herself feel whole following her own father raping her in childhood. He wanted her to keep silent so subjected the then-twelve-year-old to electro-shock therapy, permanently damaging her brain. This story could have been so incredibly ugly, so misogynistic, so unclean in its treatment of the subject. For one thing, the Unsub might have repeated her own abuse onto her dolls. But no, she just wanted to comb their hair and have tea. What really got me was the end--not only how Dr. Reed defused the situation by giving this crippled soul her original dolls back, but the joy in the faces of her latest abductee and that woman's husband as they are reunited. This was not a story wallowing in violence for its own sake, or lingering voyeuristically over torture. Here we saw a tale of heroes, doing their best to protect and serve all the innocent victims--even those who go on to have victims themselves.

My Friend Dexter

2010-12-04T12:21:00.000-08:00

Spoilers ahoy!

I can still remember first becoming aware of Dexter, the Showtime series. These huge billboard ads near my workplace in Hollywood, proclaiming "America's favorite serial killer is back." Michael C. Hall (of Six Feet Under fame) smiled out at passers-by with a silly grin and blood drops splattering his face. Okay. Got me intrigued enough to check it out. Said ad campaign proved to be somewhat misleading. They often are...

At heart Dexter Morgan is a serial killer who wants not to be. Adopted at age three by cop Harry Morgan, he began to show early signs of psychopathy. Harry did something unusual--he trained Dexter, not only in how not to get caught but also in who should die. The Code of Harry was born, with its commandment that only murderers are valid victims, those Dexter can prove beyond any shadow of doubt guilty. The idea was to protect Dexter, allowing him to vent his violent tendencies (Dexter calls that part of him his "Dark Passenger"). By the time of the series, Harry is long dead but appears in the title character's mind to offer advice, warnings, etc. Surprisingly some fans seem to think this is literally Harry's ghost, which is a little odd since even Dexter knows this is just a part of himself.

Going in, I expected a dark, quirky comedy. Well, that the show is but even more impressively it is a compelling drama about a man who believes himself inhuman, a monster incapable of human emotions, a man who constantly examines his life via inner monologue--yet is all-too-clearly human, shows emotions (which often surprise him), and often has little clue as to what is going on around as well as within him.

Something to mention about that is his pathology. Writing merely as a layman, Dexter doesn't really come across as a pure sociopath to me. For one thing, he displays genuine remorse. I suspect it is pretty minor remorse compared to what I feel, but in his limited emotional landscape that is huge. For another, he seems to genuinely care about others. He is startled to learn just how reluctant he is to kill his foster sister, Deb (a great character in her own right--foul-mouthed, hard-edged, workaholic homicide detective with a startlingly tender heart at times). When one of his victims uses a foul word for Dexter's girlfriend Rita (supposedly nothing more than a prop to help him blend in, seem normal) Dexter instantly puts a knife through the guy's heart--and look surprised at his reaction. Make no mistake, the man is still a ruthless killer with an impressive body count (a couple of dozen at least--and some of those kills are hilarious to watch). But he cares. About some people, anyway. Sociopaths don't. More, Dexter actually displays a few symptoms of very minor autism--his appearance of being a normal guy a rigorously constructed series of masks, not like the virtuoso manipulation so many high-functioning sociopaths demonstrate (Ted Bundy, for example).

Plus there's the fact he's lonely. In fact, one consistent tension in the show continues to be how others fill some kind of emotional void in Dexter's life, yet when some of them get too close, they end up dead. In season one, it was Dexter's long-lost brother and fellow serial killer Brian--who really should have known better than to reveal himself given Dexter's M.O. Season two saw Lilah, a sociopath artist who believed she'd found a soul-mate in Dexter, and found out in the end that trying to kill Rita's children was a sure way to have her heart not so much broken as pierced. Literally. Miguel Prado in season three was a quietly dangerous assistant district attorney who accidentally discovered Dexter's secret, and tried to be his friend, to enter into his world of death-dealing. Yet Miguel didn't really care about the Code, and when thwarted tried to kill Dexter. Well, there was a season four so we know essentially how that ended. Season four pitted Dexter up against the Trinity Killer, a hugely successful serial murderer who (like Dexter) maintained a seemingly normal family life--which proved fascinating for Dexter. But only one of them could survive in the end...

We are now approaching the final episodes of the fifth season. The irony inherent in the show continues to echo through nearly every detail. But this season has brought with it the most fascinating guest character so far. Lumen, played by Julia Stiles, was raped and tortured for god-only-knows how long before Dexter killed her would-be murderer. She saw him do it, and despite a part of him (Harry) all but screaming in Dexter's ear to simply let her die, he just couldn't do it. Rather, he treated her wounds and helped. Eventually, she saw him as someone who understood, the one person with whom she could open up about her longing--because she'd been tormented by a group of men, not just one. She wanted them dead, to see each one of them die, as the only way she could ever again feel peace.

And he did understand. He promised to help, hoping that in helping her the pain of his own loss (Rita, murdered by Trinity) could be healed, at least some. What has followed frankly resembles a kind of dark and weird courtship. At first Lumen (quite understandably) could not bear being touched by anyone. Yet after a while when Dexter wiped a drop of blood off her cheek, she didn't even react. Then, later, she hugged him spontaneously. When he gave her a pair of gloves (to avoid fingerprints) she almost blushed, noting "They're just like yours." Which was adorable. As was Dexter's reaction upon learning Lumen's boyfriend had finally found her and wanted her to go away with him. It was almost like a pair of thirteen-year-olds with a mutual crush and no idea how to handle it!

Not surprisingly, when Lumen herself drove a knife directly into one of her rapists' heart, while Dexter watched, it really played like losing her virginity--to someone she loved. That night, they even consummated their relationship, while Dexter's amazed inner dialogue noted that in this young woman he's found someone who sees the real him--but does not see a monster. Not at all.

Methinks a lot of what makes this series so powerful is that it is all about the troubling truths we carry around us every day. Who does not feel (at least sometimes) like a total stranger? Haven't we all found the idea baffling that anyone could know us totally and feel anything but distaste? Isn't finding love or genuine friendship a surprise? Aren't we all freaks, surrounded by normal people? Don't we all have unhealed wounds, and feel desire for dark horrible things sometimes?

I do. And so Dexter is my friend. My brother. An avatar of parts of me that usually remain hidden, because looking at them hurts, especially in the unforgiving glare of the sun.

New Broadway Dracula!

2010-11-30T11:12:00.000-08:00

A quarter-century ago, Frank Langella starred in a vivid Broadway production of the same play that pretty much created Bela Lugosi's career as a movie star. This December, a new version of the same play will open, one I'm entering contests to win a chance to go see (check the links below to take your own chance). Paul Alexander is directing, with George Hearn (probably best known for playing the lead in the national tour of the original Broadway production of Sweeney Todd) as Van Helsing, and former child star Thora Birch (of American Beauty fame as well as many other films) as the female lead, Lucy Seward.

This specific show has cast a well-known Italian stage actor Michel Alteri as the title character. He's a very handsome man, which makes sense given the dynamics of the play (as opposed to the novel). Mind you, this is also an interesting cast by any standards. One suspicion that comes to my mind is that the play is set in the 1930s, and some aspect of that era might be explored.

Performances are due to begin December 14, 2010 at the Little Shubert Theatre (442 West 42nd Street).

Here is their Facebook page.

Here is their Twitter page.

Here is their YouTube page.

Deathy Hallows Pt. 1 (Review)

2010-11-22T09:57:00.000-08:00

Spoilers Ahoy!

As we all know by now, the next-to-last installment of the first motion picture adaptations of the Harry Potter series opened last weekend to spectacular box office. Millions attended midnight shows. One of the local cinemas here in Los Angeles began regular showings at 9 a.m. instead of their more usual 11:30. Headlines heralding "the end of an era" as well as stories about the kiss that seems to startle people (hadn't they read the book?). I saw it yesterday. For entirely personal reasons, I will enjoy it more the next time. Not that I didn't enjoy it the first time! Quite the opposite. Rather, I fell into a classic dilemna for book fans seeing them transformed into a new medium--not a rejection but something of a disconnect. Certain bits I loved were cut, and honestly I cannot really disagree with any of those cuts. Turning seven-hundred-plus pages into two and half hours isn't easy. Deathly Hallows Part One manages this with great skill. For example, the somewhat clumsy explanation of how Voldemort recognized the "right" Harry was changed into something a little more visceral, more visual, and tied up to the first of many deaths in this story. Meanwhile the Horcrux Ron destroys comes across as a lot more powerful and frightening than an eye inside a locket! Kudos! Another neat little change--making Pius an actual Death Eater rather than imperioused was such a neat piece of streamlining.

Let me also mention that many lovely bits made it into the flick. When Harry wakes up at Grimmauld Place, he sees that Ron and Hermione evidently fell asleep holding hands. Adored that! When Harry (really Fleur) gets on a thestral at the beginning and hugs "her" fiancee from behind, it took less than a second but was just lovely. And hilarious. Luna and her Dad were everything I could have hoped for (not a strong man, Mr. Lovegood, but hardly an evil one--he has a breaking point and I cannot blame him too much). The Malfoy household looked great, with lots of subtle tensions and dynamics at play. Must say the casting of Jaime Campbell Brower as Grindelwald in the flashbacks and old photos was inspired (and a little gossipy shout out--congrats to him and Bonnie Wright who plays Ginny upon their recent engagement!).

Part of my discordant reaction to the film lies in its tone. My favorite Harry Potter film remains Prisoner of Azkaban if for no other reason than that one felt just right. It blended the naturalistic and fantastical to a degree that felt perfect, and none of the others in series came very close (with the possible exception of Order of the Phoenix). Lest anyone think I'm trashing this one, allow me to publicly proclaim Deathly Hallows Part One my second favorite--it really is that good! My complaint is quite subtle, worthy of notice and even discussion. But is also a matter of taste in many ways--taste about degree and nuance rather than anything fundamental. In Azkaban the magic of the wizarding world echoed in all kinds of details, from the lighting to the camera angles to the way things totally un-real just kept happening in the background.

This movie, understandably, shapes itself as a heart-wrenching thriller wherein our heroes--Harry, Ron and Hermion--find themselves on the run as Voldemort and his Death Eaters successfully take over the Wizarding World (at least in the British Isles). A Nazi-like regime is soon promoting blood purity, hounding those of Muggle ancestry. The new Minister of Magic (in a nicely evil touch) proudly proclaims he will protect this bastion of equality while standing before a statue that shows Muggles in their natural place--struggling to hold up a vast statue of an enthroned wizard. For the first time in a Harry Potter film, we do not see Hogwarts. Nor most of the staff. Hagrid and Snape make appearances but no others. Part of the story is about maturity, about how each of these three need to become a lot older and do it fast. They don't always make it. Making everything much worse is when they actually find and acquire one of Voldemort's remaining Horcruxes--a locket. Destroying it is another thing. Dealing with having a tiny piece of Voldemort's soul near them is another. A subtle touch is that while the Horcrux tends to make Harry ill-tempered and Ron selfish, it seems to make Hermione depressed.

As months go by, they all feel increasingly daunted by what faces them. Only a combination of luck, courage and Hermione's brilliance saves them. Here is something of a clue, incidentally, about the next film, at least in my eyes. Central to the book are three mysteries that confront them while they're on the run--Dumbledore's past and motivations, the Horcruxes themselves, and the mysterious Deathly Hallows of the title (the telling of this tale is handled very well indeed--a kind of shadow puppet show showing what became of the three brothers). But these are kept to a bare minimum here. Why? This is totally central to the story, and without these the climax of the seven-volume epic makes precious little sense. Methinks it likely that the "cutoff," namely where the filmmakers decided to divide the book into two, offers a clue. This film ends as Harry and his friends escape Malfoy Manor while Voldemort acquires the Elder Wand from Dumbledore's tomb. Now, this takes place rather late in the book. I would posit that the bulk of solving the mysteries takes place amid the incredibly elaborate "action sequences" to come in the next film (previews show Hogwarts itself in ruins). We'll find out next summer!

A minor point to make about the difference between all the books and all the movies, which now results in a little bit of imbalance. In the books, while Hermione is utterly brilliant at least at first she isn't that good at action. Not at first. She keeps getting better and better, so that by the end she's the equal of the boys--who likewise become increasingly more attentive to details and more intellectual stuff. The films show Hermione excellent at this from the beginning, which makes Ron in particular seem like a third wheel. Perhaps this also helps set up the scene when he destroys the Horcrux, though.

On that subject--The Kiss. Nowhere near as "fierce" as reports would lead you to think. Very effective in its own right, though.

Soon after seeing the film I overheard two nice young women discussing the flick, and they repeated what I'd heard from others--that this film was intense of a "children's story." Kinda misses the point, at least in my humble view. Harry, Ron and Hermione aren't children any more. The story has gotten increasingly adult. And honestly, what did you think the PG13 rating was all about?

This summer, the story comes to its spectacular conclusion. At least for this, first re-telling. No way it is the only one, not so long as our civilization continues. Narnia has had multiple versions. So has Lord of the Rings. Methinks it only a matter of time until Harry Potter returns with a different cast and tells the whole epic one more time through a different lens. I hope it proves at least as good as this one.

Writing: Heroic Trios

2010-11-16T10:00:00.000-08:00

Odds are you've seen them. Perhaps as you read a description you will even recognize them. But do you understand what they are and how they work? I speak (er...write) of a certain trope or character dynamic dubbed (by yours truly) as the Heroic Trio.

First of the trio I call the Decider. In whatever essential conflict of the story, he or she will be the one to...well...decide. Another way to look at it is they have the ultimate responsibility in resolving the central conflict of the story. Be it to defeat the Dark Lord, or rescue the princess from the evil galactic empire, or solve the mystery of who is the werewolf threatening the entire town--the Decider has to make the central choices leading to success or failure.

Helping the Decider are two others--companions or co-workers or family members or something. What distinguishes these two are the roles they play.

One I call the Ace, because first and foremost this person is an expert. At what entire depends upon the story details. Sometimes they are a brilliant scholar or scientist, possibly the brightest student in school. Then again, maybe they alone know how to enter the secret lair of the evil wizard.

Finally there is the Supporter, the person who acts as an emotional anchor for the trio. In practice this often means a humorous person, something of a clown, but not always. A Supporter might just as easily be the equivalent of a butler or nanny or even a bartender -- someone who helps emotionally and physically.

Kirk has Spock and Bones. They also function as two sides of Kirk's personality, or at least the voice of each. An interesting aspect of that dynamic is that Kirk leans so heavily on Spock precisely because Kirk tends to be so intuitive rather than logical. In heroic trios this often happens, that the Decider becomes in some ways more associated with the one who is least like them. Fan fiction abounds with tales of Kirk and Spock, their famous friendship, at times positing a romantic/sexual aspect to it. The new Star Trek movie was almost completely built around that relationship.

Buffy has Willow and Xander. At one point in the series they were explicitly labeled the Hand, the Head and the Heart -- during a season that was explicitly about reforging the trio in the wake of graduating high school. Willow and Xander are extremely close friends, having known and leaned upon each other practically since infancy. Yet not until Buffy arrived did they begin to find focus in their lives. Again, this is common aspect of the heroic trio. The Decider becomes the focus, the point around which the other two orbit to some extent.

Frodo has Gollum and Sam, which helps illustrate another common trait. The Ace and the Supporter often seem to be polar opposites. In Lord of the Rings it is harder to imagine a more typical Hobbit than Samwise Gamgee, nor a less typical one than Smeagol/Gollum. One is obsessed by the Ring, addicted to it, both loving and hating it as he loves and hates himself. The other is among the tiny minority almost unaffected by the thing. Even their eating habits are (famously and comically) at opposite ends of the spectrum. One is ancient, the other young. One is fat, the other scrawny to the point of emaciation. One loves plants and gardens, while the other is most comfortable in underground caves.

Vlad from Young Dracula has Chloe and Robin, who highlight how the desires of the characters in a heroic trio are usually intertwined. Vlad is a vampire who wants to be human. Robin is a human who wants to be a vampire. Chloe is the clear-sighted one who clearly sees that hanging around a real vampire is very, very dangerous -- yet continues to do so (Robin is her brother after all, and Chloe does seem to genuinely like Vlad).

Harry Potter has Hermione and Ron. That trio was formed early on in the very first novel of the series and once continuing theme is how their relationship is stretched and bent, net never quite truly broken. It also illustrates something universal in the heroic trio--the Ace and the Supporter have a powerful emotional relationship. They never exist separately and are never indifferent to one another. In this series, they fall in love. Elsewhere they are siblings, rivals, hate one another, are deeply loyal in contentious colleagues, etc. No matter the details, when these two characters interact, some kinds of sparks fly. Unless of course the trio is dysfunctional for some reason...

Looked at in a certain way, Bill Compton on True Blood has Eric and Sookie (this is from the perspective of Bill's character of course--the series itself generally is from Sookie's POV). In The Dark Knight you can see that Bruce Wayne/Batman has Alfred and Rachel Dawes (the Butler in this case being the Ace). Dexter violates this trope in that he always seems to be trying form such a trio -- but they collapse, not least because in terms of the character dynamic he has to keep his Ace and Supporter apart. This fits into his particular storyline, that of a serial killer trying to turn into a normal human being (a quest that, if successful, would of course destroy Dexter completely -- talk about an inherent and unresolvable conflict!). On the opposite legal end of the spectrum is the intense and often-brilliant Kurt Wallander (played in English by Kenneth Branaugh on Masterpiece Mystery), much of whose internal conflicts can be seen from a near-total lack of anyone who can function as part of a trio with him. He is alone, and that fact tortures him.

Bones has Booth and Angela. House has Wilson and his team (being a bit dysfunctional, his Ace is a group whose membership keeps changing). Like any such trope, the Heroic Trio is a tool -- something to help and clarify things for the writer. Its dynamic can be useful. Be warned however of using it as a crutch or a formula for success. It is and remains only a tool.

Unclicking my soapbox icon. For now.

Celluloid Anticipation Redux!

2010-10-26T07:00:00.000-07:00

Movies I am looking forward to! And why.

I've only recently learned that Amanda Seyfried, Gary Oldman and Virginia Madsden are starring in a motion picture version of Little Red Riding Hood. To be honest, the poster here is not official in any way, shape, manner or form. Just something I whipped together. Here is the official synopsis: Set in a medieval village that is haunted by a werewolf, a young girl falls for an orphaned woodcutter, much to her family's displeasure.You can read (a little) more about the film here, so there really isn't much I can say for certain. Still, I like the whole idea of a retelling of this classic (and very Freudian) fairy tale, especially when linked explicitly with the legend of the werewolf! As you can probably guess, I'm quite the fan of Neil Jordon's Company of Wolves. It is supposed to be a "gothic" retelling and is directed by the same person who did the first Twilight movie. Expected release date is March 2011.

One film I've know of for a little while is The Tempest based on Shakespeare's play, directed by Julie Taymor (who also did another Shakespeare film, Titus). Interestingly, the lead's gender is changed but that I don't mind at all. The cast is stellar with Dame Helen Mirren as Prospera, Felicity Jones as her daughter Miranda, Alan Cumming as Sebastian and Russel Brand as Trinculo. You can see the trailer right here. I think it looks spectacular! This was one of the Bard's mature plays, and has a slightly melancholy air despite the many hijinks and puns. Film gives us the potential to see the magic, and frankly looks to put Harry Potter to shame! Look for it December 10, 2010.

Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader surprised me, simply because I thought the decision had been not to make the thing! To be honest, C.S.Lewis' works don't touch me as much as do Tolkien's but that doesn't mean they aren't fun. Methinks (will have to check) this is the first adaptation of the third Narnia novel, about a quest to the very edge of the world. If one thinks Ulysses, or the Argonauts with a few dashes of Sinbad but through a Narnian lens you won't be far off. For me, having always loved to live near waves and the smell of salt air, this fantasy which comprises a sea journey holds a special attraction. Take a gander at the trailer right here.

Guest Blogging & Some Thanks!

2010-10-24T15:02:00.000-07:00

Did a few more guest blogs, this time on almost-vampire Mina Murray and of course her fiancee (and sometimes vampire hunter) Jonathan Harker. These form part of a series I'm doing about the major characters in Dracula. Another series is on the major actors who've played the world's most famous Transylvanian (the second methinks would have to be Johnny Weismuller, Olympic swimmer and star of many a motion picture about Tarzan).

As October ebbs to its climax (Halloween!!!!) I am also moved to render thanks to some celebrities. Without going into details, let me admit many aspects of my life are a mess. I have far too many bills, even more regrets, estranged family members (and in all honesty I cannot avoid some blame for that), an ongoing health problem I've created for myself (having to do with sugar and teeth, if you must know) and on top of all that I am alone.

On the other hand, there are some celebrities who remind me on a visceral level how lucky I am, how wise, how prudent, how generally un-screwed up I am at present.

So thank you for that Mr. and Mrs. Randy Quaid, Miss Lindsay Lohan, Mr. Mel Gibson, Mr. Michael Jackson (rest in peace, you seemed like a nice guy but c'mon!), Miss Britney Spears, Mr. Nicholas Cage and of course Mr. Elvis Presley (DEAR GOD MAN YOU HAD IT ALL!).

I'll have something substantive to say later this week. Promise.

Creationism's Threat

2010-10-20T00:38:00.000-07:00

Warning: Strong opinions ahead!

Growing up in the Deep South, one of the many issues I ended up exposed to (albeit not until college) was a pseudo-science called Creationism. These days it goes by the name Intelligent Design. Many people don't realize the reason for the name-change. Simply, Federal Courts ruled that Creationism is religion, not science. Reading the actual decisions makes this pretty clear. Science is open to change, based upon evidence. Creationism is not--by definition it rejects even the possibility it could be wrong no matter what the evidence.

Hence the name-change. It offers up a perfect example of what Creationists engage in on a routine basis--deceit. Not the rank and file person on the street has next to no knowledge of biology and feels overwhelmed a changing world. No, the liars are the leaders and writers and spokespeople of the Creationism movement. They engage in a concerted campaign to distort facts, studying hard to do so.

Case in point--Piltdown Man. This was a hoax "discovered" in 1912, an early human fossil or so it seemed. It had its detractors from the very start and eventually it was exposed as a hoax in the 1950s. Creationists routinely try to use this as proof of how unreliable evolutionary biology must be. Now think about this for a moment. Apply this same standard to all human endeavor. Think of one subject which has not been the subject of a hoax or a mistake. If you can think of one, do so more research. I'll bet money you're wrong. Error is part of the human condition, which is why protocols exist to check and re-check all scientific findings before they get published in accredited journals. Creationists sneer at this process (when they acknowledge it) as a way of smothering dissent. This viewpoint alone indicates how little they understand (or are willing to mention) about scientific journals--the widely diverging views and often-acrimonious debates about all kinds of questions that go on there. More, Creationists don't bother to talk about the actual standards being used--which are scientific, standardized and offer no impediment to anything that has some evidential backing, even if inconclusive. Creationists cannot meet those standards, so they attack them.

One could easily write a book about all the different tricks and deceits practiced by the Creationist movement--from cheery picking to deliberate misinformation to ad hominem attacks and straw men, false analogies and non sequitors to a thousand other stunts. One particular thing anyone playing close attention will notice is how Creationists change the subject whenever an obstacle of knowledge and data lies ahead.

But more to the point, what is this all about really? Why do they care? Creationist organizations are nation-wide and often well-funded, doing their best to divert education away from everything current in biology towards...what?

Therein lies the rub. What are they trying to promote?

It isn't hard to find that out, actually. A "return to Christian values" by which they mean a certain brand of Fundamentalist Protestantism. A specific literal interpretation of the Bible (not just any literal interpretation, theirs and theirs alone). No more belief that we are shaped by our environment in any way--because that would justify society acting to help each other out. Hence higher taxes to pay for things like feeding the hungry or healing the sick, or cleaning up after natural disasters. Officially sanctioned prejudice against women, homosexuals and non-Fundamentalist Protestants, as in Judea of Old (or their imaginary version of same--these folks generally know as little about history, theology and Biblical studies as they do about biology). Legislating norms in the arts. Banning certain paganistic holidays and practices. Leading children into prayer by government fiat, specific prayers of a specific religions POV regardless of what those children or their families think. Theocracy--not overtly as in Iran but more along the lines of Utah or the Soviet Union (in theory the Communist Party was a different entity from the government--it just happened that the leaders of one were identical to the leaders of the other).

Did I mention I'm a Christian? A quite devout one? Of course, in the eyes of Fundamentalists I am not because my opinions do not slavishly follow theirs--and they claim absolute authority to make that decision. History shows what happens when Fundamentalists get their hands on things like governments, avoidable tragedies follow. One--which understandably gets eclipsed amid the shattered lives and all-too-often bloody corpses--is the spiritual loss of direction. Just as the Pharisees saw the Messiah as a threat to be destroyed, so the Pharisees of our own time see genuine search for Faith as something to be controlled rather than encouraged.

Creationism denies all kinds of truths--but in terms of Christianity, it denies any vision of God's works can possibly be valid save their own narrow one. In a child, this kind of stubbornness remains understandable, forgivable, little enough to cause concern. Grown-ups are supposed to be wiser.

The Most Mysterious Dracula

2010-10-19T09:37:00.000-07:00

A guest blog I wrote for Vampires.com is about Max Schrek, star of the first film version of Dracula.

30 Days of Night: Dark Days (Review)

2010-10-13T11:39:00.000-07:00

Spoilers ahoy!

A major event among fans of the undead--especially those with a liking for graphic novels--remains the publication of 30 Days of Night, later made into a film of the same name. In particular this work and its sequels were heralded for "making vampires scary again." One can hardly argue. Rather than anguished fallen angels, the creatures at the heart of these stories were the equivalent of sharks--hiding in the shadows and then grabbing those who strayed too far from safety. The central plot idea--of the vampires enjoying a orgiastic feast in a small Alaska town that "enjoys" 30 days of night--added a nicely creepy Night of the Living Dead and/or The Thing feel which worked nicely.

Now a sequel to the first film has arrived on DVD. Loosely based upon the actual sequel 30 Days of Night: Dark Days follows the efforts of survivor/widow Stella to deal with her grief. At first she simply tries to tell the world. As the film opens, she finds herself recruited by a small band of vampire hunters.

Melissa George does not reprise her role as Stella, that part being taken over by Kiele Sanchez. The latter is a more obviously tough-looking person, which in a way shows what has gone wrong with this production. Most folks might not realize how startling it was years ago when Jodie Foster got the part of Clarice in Silence of the Lambs, given that she was this tiny actress then best known for rather more feminine/victimized roles. In hindsight, the choice was brilliant. Not so here. None of the actors are bad. All do their jobs well. But with one exception none of them shine, none rise above the material. The best actors add nuance to their roles, and dive deep into whatever each character experiences moment by moment. Only one member of the cast really managed to that here. Rather they show the surface and maybe one layer underneath.

We'll get to the one exception in a moment.

The script doesn't help, showing as it does pretty much the same flaws. Whereas the graphic novel didn't shy away from the really dark and disturbing stuff about our central characters, this movie does. It is a subtle thing, but important. Stella, our hero, is a ravaged soul. We use clinical terms like trauma or distress to define what she endures, but in terms of the character herself her world has been shredded into bleeding strips. Her husband gave his life to save her from an unearthly horror. Her ability to cope with that fact (and all the details associated) has frayed Stella's mind. She is taking insane risks.

She is not quite at the point where the movie's ending makes sense, however. Comparisons to the source material aren't always fair, because we are talking about different media. Books can be read at leisure, savoring each sentence and image. Movies rush at you at 25 frames per second. In this instance, though, doing so leads to exactly what doesn't work in the film. The dramatic punch is pulled.

Dane is arguably one of the most interesting characters--a vampire who retains enough of his humanity to consciously help the hunters. The graphic novel has him a stronger person than the movie. Stella even likes him, to her surprise. He says most vampires are "assholes" simply because most people are. Not the route one can take in the films, because those who adapted it from the start went with an interesting route. Their vampires truly are beasts, predators ruled by their instincts. In both films this allows a certain formula for victory. Successfully kill the Alpha of the pack, and the rest of them will simply not oppose you. It comes across as instinct. Dane in the film is a vampire in whom those instincts didn't quite "take" for some reason. That makes sense, given the movie's mythology. It makes Dane the vampire equivalent of a sociopath--he doesn't feel kinship with his fellow bloodsuckers so can go against the pack mentality. Give credit where credit is due--that is a fascinating idea.

Unfortunately, the reason for having Dane there gets lost.

In the graphic novel Stella is not only surprised to find herself liking Dane, but is fascinated by him, eventually making love to him and is deeply upset when he's killed. The film has her only ever tolerate him. She beds another of the hunters, a more ordinary man rather like herself but maybe just a little bit emotionally healthier.

Okay but here is the kicker. The movie keeps the graphic novel's ending. Stella finds out there is a way to bring a vampire back. She then goes back to Barrow Alaska, site of the terrible siege, and digs up her husband Eben. He had made himself a vampire specifically to gain the power to save Stella and a few other survivors. Then he watched the sun rise with her, saying he didn't ever want to not love her. She watched him become a man-shaped cinder. Now she does what it takes to resurrect him--and he immediately bites her throat.

A good ending. Except that it wasn't set up. Stella didn't go through the kinds of changes to lead her to do such a thing--a reckless act of desperate loneliness and hope, emerging from her experience with Dane. Nor did the actress have the chops (and impressive they would have to have been) to carry that out on her own.

One actor in the ensemble did rise above the material. Mia Kirshner plays Lilith, the undead Queen Bee. As a bit of trivia, this marks Kirshner's third time essaying a vampire--previously on The Vampire Diaries and as a teenager for two episodes of Dracula: The Series. These days she's probably best known for five years as the mercurial Jenny on The L Word, but in that and other roles she's revealed what a startlingly interesting and often fearless actress she can be. She's tiny, yet dominates every scene in which she appears. The weirdly sing-song voice, like a little girl almost playing with dolls, added to her creepiness and strangely enough to the sense of power conveyed. Even more so her body language--regal and still and yet animalistic at the same time. Imagine Graf Orlock from the silent classic Nosferatu but as a pretty woman.

Do I recommend the movie? Depends on your mood. None of the performances are bad (quite a step up for many direct-to-DVD productions). Some are good. One attains real quality. The excitement of the basic story--the hunters trying to take out Lilith and so destroy her nest--is there, transposed in some interesting ways. A few details are just cool, while at least horror itself remains intact. Stella's journey through the bowels of that ship includes stuff one expected the studio to balk over, but evidently they didn't. Lilith's unique method of feeding from a handsome young man was something I've never seen before--and was erotic in a skin-crawling kind of way. But don't expect something with the emotional power of Let Me In or Shadow of the Vampire or even The Wolfman.

Night of the Living Puppets

2010-10-11T12:10:00.000-07:00

My latest guest blog for vampires.com...

Pinocchio the Vampire Slayer was a 2010 graphic novel, with a sequel in the works. The title makes a weird kind of sense, given that the titular hero is in effect a living weapon against the undead. But another thought comes to mind almost immediately.
Would Pinocchio have to fight vampires who were also puppets?

My Guest Blogs!

2010-10-07T16:40:00.000-07:00

I've been guest blogging lately at vampires.com and thought to share some of them...

Children of the Night is about child vampires and what their portrayal may tell us about ourselves.

What To Do With Dracula? examines the way we seem to have wrung everything we can out of the book and character--or have we?

Let Me In (Review)

2010-10-02T22:19:00.000-07:00

Spoilers Ahoy!

Over a year ago my friend Nadia raved about a Swedish vampire movie titled Let The Right One In. After watching it, my own praise for this film became extravagant. Then came the day I got to read the novel. It too proved marvelous.

News of an English-language version. I am not someone who rejects things out-of-hand without some good reason. Had Joel Shumacher, for example, been attached as director I'd've been nauseous. Ditto George Lucas, Uwe Boll, a dozen others any of us could easily name. Yet Matt Reeves was both writing and directing the film. Matt Reeves of Cloverfield fame. Or infamy. Depends on one's pov, yes?

Long story short (too late!) I felt cautiously optimistic.

Now that I've seen it, my feelings are a blend of "impressed" "thrilled" and "disturbed." Impressed because this is a movie that captures the ruthless yet tender heart of the book at least as well as the first film. Yes, at least as well. "Thrilled" because this was not only a good retelling of the novel into a new medium, but in some ways a startlingly original version. "Disturbed" because this film actually creeped me out in ways the Swedish motion picture did not.

At the core, novel and films explore loneliness--how it distorts while it tortures. Owen, the main character (Kodi Smitt-McPhee in a performance that makes me long to see him as Hamlet in a decade's time), is a very bright but disturbed boy. His parents are mid-divorce. Father isn't present. Mother (whom we never quite see) numbs herself with religious platitudes and wine. Neither seem to have the slightest idea about their child's unhappiness. Bullied viciously at school, Owen seethes with fear and rage. He has begun to enter puberty, yet still gobbles up candy like a very small child. Pleasure clearly exists in such tiny amounts, at least in Owen's life, he rarely hesitates when given any chance--even if it means spying on the pretty young wife in his apartment complex. The wall in his bedroom says it all. It shows a view of Earth from the cold landscape of the barren moon.

Enter Abby (Chloe Grace Moretz who stole the movie Kick Ass earlier this year as Hit-Girl). Seemingly another lonely child. In fact, she is precisely that, but is also a vampire, who-knows-how-old. Her companion, a man people assume is her father (Richard Jenkins, a marvelous actor in his own right), is clearly devoted to Abby beyond words. Beyond life. Interestingly, in the first film my reaction to this character was "Pedophile." Here I thought it pretty clear that he was once what Owen is now--a lonely child drawn into orbit around an even lonelier, much older and more dangerous semi-child.

Much will be made of the question--Does Abby care? Is she pursuing a ruthless agenda of recruiting another caretaker as her previous one begins to fail? Or as one relationship disintegrates, does she happen upon someone about whom she can genuinely feel affection, even love? Methinks the answer to that question says most about the person giving the answer. Let Me In keeps any possible final answer on that question ambiguous.

Yet there are hints.

Abby could lie to her Caretaker. She does not. At his end, she could have been ruthless instead of gentle. She didn't have to keep those photos of him for Owen to find. When her vampire-self began to take over, she managed to save Owen. Yet she was also hovering around Owen at the end, waiting for the chance to save him from the bullies.

My own answer to that question is--both. She was looking for a new Caretaker, and she found him in a boy she could love. Possibly she loves Owen more than any other. Maybe not. But she needs him. She wants him. She feels for him. All these and more wrapped up into one emotional package. Life is complex like that.

But what really sticks in my mind is the ending. Owen has found his friend, escaped from Los Alamos New Mexico, been saved from his tormentors and begun a new adventure as companion/familiar of a beautiful creature out of legend. Yet he gobbles candy. He sings an advertising jingle. He remains a child, one who began this story disturbed in many ways and is he much better? Happier, yes. For now. He's in love. More, I believe he is loved. No small thing. But he has entered the same trap that Abby inhabits. No matter how old he gets, how much growing up can he possibly achieve really?

She is an eternal little girl. By choosing her, Owen has condemned himself to being an eternal little boy. Even when his hair turns gray and his teeth fall out--still just a little boy.

A little boy who will kill for her, one day. Just as she has killed for him. Yet will never grow up. Neither of them. A little bit of heaven, maybe, on top of more than a few drops of pure hell. For them both.

Technically I will say the rhythm of the story seemed slightly rushed in a few spots. One gets the impression of scenes cut to keep the playing time a reasonable length. Let us hear it for Director's Extended Cuts! Likewise a time or two the beautiful musical score intruded (although barely--mostly it meshed perfectly with events and helped to create atmosphere virtually from frame one). For those wishing to compare, this is in now way a shot-by-shot remake. Neither is it a hack job. The three actors at the heart of the film carry its burden and they do not stumble. Jenkins and Moretz are already known to me as exceptional artists. Smitt-McPhee, with whom I'm not familiar, is a revelation.

The Fall (Review)

2010-09-30T13:00:00.000-07:00

Spoilers Ahoy!

Guillermo del Toro and Chuck Hogan have written/are writing a vampire trilogy that some have dubbed "The Anti-Twilight." Titled The Fall it picks up pretty much where the previous (first) novel left off. New York City has been infected by a kind of vampiric disease, a mutating virus spread by worms that rewrites the victims' DNA into a kind of gigantic insect. They still look more-or-less human. Kinda/sorta. Unless you get a good look at the red eyes, the hairless and earless head. Or their hands. If they open their mouths, the illusion is gone. A four-foot fleshy stinger awaits its chance to burrow into a victim and draw out blood like a mosquito.

Ick.

The Fall marks a deliberate attempt to tell a tale of horror. For the record, the writers succeed. The unnamed (at first) Master Vampire behind this plague threatening to destroy New York has much more in common with The Master from Buffy than the same-named villain from Doctor Who. He is a demon, a towering giant of viciousness with the patience of long years and centuries to plan. He is one of seven original Vampires, but the one gone most rogue. Interestingly, he is also the one most capable of seeing humanity's potential, of using what (to him) are just wonderful human ideas.

Like concentration camps.

Much of the novel consists of racing against time by our lead characters, unraveling a few of the mysteries about vampires and what The Master seems to be aiming for. As other cities begin to suffer the fate of New York, one looms most large--what is The Master's ultimate plan? He clearly doesn't want to turn all humanity into vampires. That would be stupid, and suicidal. So what is his goal? The Van Helsing-like Abraham Setrakian believes he knows a way to find out. More, to learn a key to snatching some kind of victory from the gore-drenched jaws of holocaust. It all lies in an incredibly rare book based on an obscure Mesopotamian text, a tome said to contain the origins of the Ancients, the seven eldest vampires of all.

Eph Goodweather, former head of the CDC and now a fugitive from forces allied to The Master, struggles not only to find a way to help stop a plague but to protect his beloved son from his vampirized ex-wife. Making up a third is Vasily Fet, one-time professional exterminator and now very effective vampire-hunter. How the lives of all these characters tend to intertwine in fascinating ways is part of what makes the novel so much fun. A few in-jokes are a little much (if you're familiar with Mexican wrestler Santo movies, you'll soon see what I mean--but it works). The overall impact is a dizzying roller-coaster ride through an intricate chamber of horrors.

Yes, I know that is a mixed metaphor. I don't care.

One thing that continues to bother me is the treatment of the characer Nora, Eph's co-worker as well as once-and-future lover. In the first novel The Strain she was something of a cypher. We get to know her a little bit better in this film, including some hint of a tendency to place herself in orbit around others. But at heart she's a secondary character, nothing more. I admit to a prejudice towards stories with stronger female roles.

Elsewhere I've complained a bit about how some authors pull their dramatic punch. Not in this book! One expects our heroes to somehow save the day. They don't. They survive, most of them. They come together towards a greater goal. They do accomplish things, vital things. Indeed, one can almost see the seeds of ultimate victory against The Master might have been sewn in these pages. But if this were the story of World War Two, the novel ends with the fall of France and the Nazi blitz of London beginning its reign of death onto London. As Eph and Nora are joined by Fet and the former gang-member Gus, as they watch the dominoes set up by The Master's plan begin to fall one-by-one, we can only hope this is the darkest hour.

It probably is not. Hogan and Del toro accomplish what relatively few authors manage to do--surprise me. They have primed my anticipation and hopes that one year from now I'll be writing another review in equally glowing terms.

Remake of Caligari (Review)

2010-09-19T10:44:00.000-07:00

Spoilers ahoy!

A friend of mine shared this with me and I had to write a review, share it with folks who might appreciate it as I do. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) as a milestone of German expressionistic cinema, one that seriously influenced nearly all that came after it. One can see in it a lens through which a traumatized society began to see the world. Recall this was immediately following the First World War, a social upheaval whose reverberations included the Nazis, Lord of the Rings, Prohibition, the rise of new and startling artforms as well as the end to most of the ancient monarchies of Europe. We still feel it today.

In 2005 a sound remake not only recreated the story but by filming on green screen managed to use the actual background of the original, placing new actors against the same eerie nightmare landscape. Ah the wonders of the personal computer!

A old man tells a spooky story to a young one, Francis (Judson Pearce Morgan) who scoffs at belief in devils or ghosts. Then, a beautiful young woman passes (Lauren Birkell) without answering their salutation. Francis, grief-stricken, identifies her as his fiancee. He says her sanity was destroyed in a terrible series of events...

From there the flashback begins, telling of Francis and his best friend Allan (Neil Hopkins) who both love Jane (the aforementioned beautiful young woman). Allan drags Francis off to see the local Carnival, where on a whim they go see the exhibit of one Dr. Caligari (Daamen J. Krall) -- a somnambulist named Caesare (Doug Jones of Hellboy fame) who can be made to wake then foresee the future. Allan asks how long he has to live. The answer "Until dawn tomorrow!" Sure enough, within twelve hours he has been stabbed to death in his sleep. Francis, suspicious of Caligari and perhaps guilt-ridden over loving the same woman as his murdered best friend (and neglecting him in the wake of Allan's mental illness), spurs city officials to investigate. But in doing so, he becomes the target of Caligari's revenge--aimed squarely at the lovely Jane! Caesare, under his master's hypnotic commands, goes to kill her. But then, entranced by her beauty, he stays his hand. Seeking to kidnap her instead, Caesare is chased down. Jane, alas, is so traumatized she becomes almost catatonic. Francis is the one who tracks down Caligari to his lair--an insane asylum where the man turns out to be the director!

As the story concludes, we return to the present. Francis bemoans his Jane's continued state-of-mind while continuing to insist there are no ghosts, no demons, only the physical world. Then comes the twist. We learn all three of them--Francis, the old man, and Jane--are inmates at the very asylum of the flashback. Caesare is another inmate. More, the man identified as "Caligari" is indeed the asylum's director. As Francis attacks him and is put into a straight jacket, the Doctor believes he now understands and may be able to cure him.

Such a simple plot description doesn't capture what makes both films--original and remake--so powerful. A lot depends upon the strange look of the film and its world. There's hardly a vertical or horizontal line anywhere. Instead curves and angles abound. Like film noir decades later, shadows frame so many shots and likewise the acting has a stylized quality. Almost stage-theatrical. More, the acting itself isn't simply creepy for the sake of effect, but informed by the subtext. We can see how even in the flashback Allan, Francis and Jane all seem fragile. Each seems potentially the victim of mental illness. The easier, cheaper choice would have been to play them as already mad in some way. "Fragile" works much better, and is also harder to pull off. This cast did it, though! Likewise, in this world-within-a-world passions simmer under the surface but bound by social rules. How appropriate that here, a wedding proposal between two young people who clearly love one another is enacted with neither looking the other in the eye!

But what helps make this such a success is not only the fine performances or stunning look, but the fact the script by David Lee Fisher (who also directed) presses the button of fear and uncertainty we all feel. How can we be sure? Might not everything we believe be wrong?

Consider--in 1920 the world was reeling from the most vast and destructive war in history, one that devastated Europe and saw startling new forms of death wielded in ways no one seemed to have given serious thought to before. More, that war had seemingly accomplished little good. A dictatorial regime in an aggressive nation was replaced by an unstable democracy, rendering the heart of a vital part of the world uncertain of its future. At the same time a dictatorial movement had seized power in a resource-rich nation and sought to expand that movement's sway. That this movement was ill-understood by most only made things worse. On top of all that, a terrible disease had come out of nowhere and wrecked havoc across the globe (the 1918 Spanish Flu). All this in the wake of disasters involving what we'd regarded as the crowning achievement of our technological world of wonders (the Titanic). The wealthy of the world saw their fortunes rise to dizzying heights while the poor in many ways got worse and worse. Scientific breakthroughs were questioning our foundations of what we believed about reality (this was the heyday of Freud and Einstein) while new forms of communication ushered in social movements and changing gender roles that puzzled/threatened those unable to cope.

Sound familiar? Is it any wonder that final scene in Caligari still moves us, still confuses and resonates? Because we still are on Francis' side. We still want Jane to love him, even though we now know she doesn't even know him. We distrust the Doctor, even though he has done nothing wrong we know of--quite the opposite. Francis screams at the end. Don't we feel a little like screaming as well?

Dracula Mash Up!!!

2010-09-13T17:00:00.000-07:00

Okay, this is silly but I'm in a silly mood! Suppose we had all the film versions of Dracula from which to mix and match the best in each role--who would we chose? Actually, since this is my blog, the question is who would I choose? Something of a Rorshach test actually...

I'll admit that to my mind Peter Cushing remains my first and most vivid image of Van Helsing, perhaps most oddly in some ways because (unlike most portrayals) he seems to be presented as an Englishman, even though of course the character is Dutch! On the other hand, he has a German accent in the novel so go figure. To bb sure there have been other great Van Helsings, including Sir Anthony Hopkins but Cushing is the learned vampire hunter in my mind's eye. Probably because he was the first, when I saw Hammer's Brides of Dracula way back when during an afternoon movie. Likewise the best Mina I've ever seen was Lupita Tovar in the Spanish-language version of Dracula made at the same time as Lugosi's version (but at night). Long thought lost, the missing reel of this almost-forgotten classic was found in the film archives of Cub

a and can now be purchased on DVD. Okay, that character's name was "Eva" but she was obviously supposed to be Mina--she was best friends with Lucy, engaged to Juan...er...Jonathan Harker, was the vampire's second victim, etc. Jonathan Harker is in many ways the least interesting role in the whole book, since he exists as little more than a good-looking leading man who is tempted by the Brides then dutifully does what he's told by others, holding his wife's hand half the time. Or so it would seem. When you look at Colin Redgrave's version of him in the 1968 BBC Dracula one sees a bit more potential--and all that stuff is indeed present in the novel. He clearly feels very strongly about the Count and has some

mixed feelings about Mina, although he does love her, and is one of two sufferers of mental illness in the story. True, in that version they were giving me the Renfield-role but Redgraves' remains the single most vivid Jonathan Harker to my sensibilities. The same version gave us Susan George as Lucy Westenra (oddly re-named Western for some reason). Frankly, one cannot help but wish after seeing her in this take that she hadn't been hired by Hammer to appear in some of their vampire classics. She blended the innocence and flirtatiousness of Lucy the human girl with the dark glamour and sensual nature of the vampire in a way that grabbed

the attention and kept it. Just as Francis Ford Coppola's ironically named Bram Stoker's Dracula gave us IMHO very nearly the epitome of both Dr. Jack Seward with Richard E. Grant in the role, and Bill Campbell as the American cowboy Quincey Morris. Yet the Arthur Holmwood who remains most firmly fixed in my memory is from an interesting but not-quite-there version by the BBC in 2006--in the case the actor Dan Stevens as a syphlitic aristocrat (inherited from his father) horrified by all his hopes and dreams about to be yanked from him by an unspeakable (and unspoken-of) practical joke set up by Fate. It was so interesting to see this figure portrayed not as an epitome of proper English values but a well-meaning yet weak victim of Victorian hypocrisy. Likewise Seward, the eldest of the three suitors as an somewhat unscrupulous obsessive, coupled with a Quincey with little sophistication but a heart of gold proved both interesting and pleasing...


The Three Suitors of Lucy

Speaking (or writing) of threes, one can hardly think of that number and the story of Transylvania's most famous nobleman without summoning images of Dracula's Brides--an unholy, lusting trinity who have fueled many a young man's dreams (and more than a few young lady's as well, surely). Again, I chose from Bram Stoker's Dracula one such, in this case one of the most beauteous creatures on this Earth--actress Monica Bellucci. From the afore-mentioned Hammer studio production Brides of Dracula (which is technically not about Dracula per se) the image of Andree Melly continues to haunt my own musings about female vampires, and the one detail of quality in an otherwise wretched motion picture called Old Dracula is the almost cameo of Linda Hayden as a new recruit into the Count's harem.

The Brides of Dracula!

We are now left with two major roles yet to be cast from all those who've done them on screen before now. Clearly the lesser of the two, Renfield remains a plum role. What actor worth his salt doesn't find the idea of playing a bug-eating madman desperate for yet terrified of redemption at least tempting? This one was close, because I really loved Tom Waits in the role, but when push comes to shove the performance of Jack Shepherd (no, not the

Lost character!) in BBC's 1977 Count Dracula the most effective and moving. Of all the Renfields, he most touched my heart. So naturally he is my choice.

Which brings us to our lead. Looking back on the rest of the cast, methinks we can see a certain retro feel to the whole thing, yes? And yet my own sensibilities (reflected herein) are modern. So my final casting choice rests on a technicality. He has not in fact played Count Dracula. But he did play a real vampire recruited to pretend to be Count Dracula

for purposes of a motion picture. Close enough for jazz, and the purposes of my blog. So here is Willem Dafoe as an unnamed undead persuaded by F.W.Murnau to play the title character in the silent classic Nosferatu. This film--Shadow of the Vampire.

Until some movie-making software leaps ahead by a quantum step or two, your imagination is the only place where you can see this movie. Alas. But on the other hand, that shouldn't be too hard, should it? Take a stroll through this dream-version of Bram Stoker's novel why don't you? Tell me what you think... Or share your own ideas.

Enter freely of your own will...

Unused Vampire Tropes

2010-09-08T16:20:00.000-07:00

Given the popularity of the undead in mainstream media these days (or nights, as the case might be) one hopes a bit more variety might show up in the various movies and t.v. shows of the genre.

Books of course have nearly every trope imaginable, but also (nearly always) have far smaller audiences. So let us deal with film and television.

Here are some ideas/themes/story elements that I haven't seen yet. Every single one seems quite viable, enjoyable, full of potential. And for the record, by no stretch of the imagination are they my own invention. Each can be found somewhere in undead literature already--but hardly at all elsewhere. Producers, writers, directors--take note.

Detective turned vampire. Oh wait, you say. What about Angel or Forever Knight or Blood Ties, etc.? Haven't we seen enough of these? Actually, no. All of the above are vampires-turned-detective. What about someone who is already a detective, perhaps an FBI agent or a regular cop or some such, who becomes a vampire yet continues in his (or her) job? This has all kinds of possibilities, not least watching the newborn undead learn the truth of their existence (a fascinating process with Jessica on True Blood incidentally) and at the same time solving crimes.
Vampire Origins. With the possible exception of the Dracula 2000 trilogy (which was fun, but made little sense since vampires predate the birth of Christ), this is a startling untapped vein (sorry, sorry) of intrigue, mystery and adventure. Consider how much Spielberg got out of the Holy Grail and the Lost Ark of the Covenant! Think also how vampires themselves might view the question. Would they be any less divided on such than mortal men?
Undead Secret Masters. Paranoia is good wellspring of story-telling, if a sad facet of normal human existence. That is why The X-Files' frankly ridiculous theory about the JFK assassination had "legs"
and the so-called "Masonic Conspiracy" about Jack the Ripper has made a couple of thrilling movies (even if the theory itself is nonsense). But what about a story that explored the notion that a cabal of powerful vampires really do control the world, much as the Illuminati or the Gnomes of Zurich or some such are said to? It could be they aren't particularly vicious or evil, even. Our heroes might even work for them, tracking down genuine threats to world order and tasting all the angst that might go along with such a job.
Bloodlines. Quite simply, there are different types of vampires--each has their own culture, powers, weaknesses, etc. Kindred: The Embraced dabbled in this ever so slightly, as did Forever Knight but what about exploring the idea as a genuine story element with real consequences? How would it be if some vampires burned in sunlight, while others could shapeshift and still others needed to sleep in their original graves, and so on? Imagine how such bloodlines might interact!
Mysticism. Understandably enough, the vampires portrayed on shows like The Vampire Diaries and movies like Let Me In are grounded in the physical. But what about a totally different direction? Legends of the supernatural tell much stranger tales--of beings that can be in two places at once, that are in some sense not even matter as we know it, vampires as more akin to blood-drinking ghosts than paranormal predators of humans. Remember the owls on Twin Peaks? Or the spookiness of the Let's Scare Jessica to Death?

September Blog Chain: Seasons

2010-09-04T22:04:00.000-07:00

This month's blog chain is about seasons, which is left up to us in exactly how we approach same. Such is a tad awkward, because I already wrote on this subject. Kinda/sorta. But it isn't as if Autumn is a subject easily exhausted!

I am not at all a summer person. Even after growing in Florida, amid an atmosphere only slightly less humid than New Orleans, heat is not something I like. In fact after the past decade of living in a huge artificial oasis on the coast of the American Southwest Desert (i.e. Los Angeles) my emotional attachment to Autumn has grown. More puzzling is that Autumn includes so many disappointments.

My mother died in November. So did the woman I loved. Those are the top ones. But there were more, including the last time I tried hosting a party. A Halloween party. Costumes, naturally. One person arrived. We watched 1977's BBC Count Dracula and chatted. Never tried that again.

All of which makes me sound like a whiner, doesn't it? Or at least depressed. Me, I prefer the word melancholy. Far more pretentious. More accurate as well. Perhaps I've learned to accept some degree of sadness in my life. Didn't want to. Still seethe in anger at the fact, at times even wanting to scream (maturity means I don't actually do it, though).

There, maybe, lies part of the answer. Autumn is the time when things begin to die. Yet, as Cyrano pointed out, each leaf achieves a kind of glory as it falls. Remember Walsh? (From the movie Serenity--go watch it if you haven't.) My perceptions of the world are askew from others. Whereas others look at people's eyes, my eyes find the mouth. You know how so many writers write the equivalent of a sonnet then have to somehow cut it down to a haiku? I'm the opposite. Hence to me the dying of life seems soothing.

Years ago someone uttered a wise sentence to me. "Life always keeps one particular promise--in the end you get to rest." It has helped me, thinking on that. Death has its attractions. But no need to rush. As the autumn leaves fall, they remind me of this.

Such might be part of the answer, anyway.

Here is the list of the September Blog Chain participants:
Ralph_Pines: http://ralfast.wordpress.com/ and direct link to his post
Aheïla: http://thewriteaholicblog.wordpress.com/ and direct link to her post
DavidZahir: http://zahirblue.blogspot.com/ <<<< you are here
NEXT >>>>orion_mk3: http://nonexistentbooks.wordpress.com/
LadyMage: http://www.katherinegilraine.com/
semmie: http://semmie.wordpress.com/
llalah: http://www.twylanonsequitur.blogspot.com/
hillaryjacques: http://www.hillaryjacques.blogspot.com/
AuburnAssassin: http://clairegillian.wordpress.com/
laffarsmith: http://www.craftingfiction.com/
sbclark: http://www.sonyaclark.net/
FreshHell: http://freshhell.wordpress.com/
PASeasholtz: http://www.paseasholtz.com/
SF4-EVER: http://www.ulbrichalmazan.blogspot.com/
T.N. Tobias: http://tnt-tek.com/
IrishAnnie: http://superpenpower.blogspot.com
Proach: http://desstories.blogspot.com/
mada: http://questioningseeking.blogspot.com/

Ground Zero Mosque

2010-09-01T08:00:00.000-07:00

A whole mess of furor surrounds the announcement that a Muslim cultural center was going to open about two city blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan. It has stirred so much controversy one has to believe a lot more than this one building is really being discussed.

Consider. There are thousands and thousands of Muslim Americans living in Lower Manhattan. Many were killed on 9/11, including fire fighters, police officers and nurses. By no stretch of the imagination is anyone connected to the proposed center associated in any sane way with Al Qaeda or with anyone of that nature. Claiming anything like that would be like accusing Vice President Joe Biden of being a child molester because he is Roman Catholic.

To be sure, this is a time of great uncertainty. As with similar times, conspiracy theories and suspicion run rampant. During the first World War, the British royal family had to change their name because its origins were German! During the second, the USA literally forced thousands of Americans into camps where they could be watched and kept isolated (decades passed before we officially admitted we were wrong). Why? Because they were Japanese. Incidentally, there are Japanese Buddhist and Shinto shrines very near Pearl Harbor today. Look it up.

Also, politicians are painting in broad strokes to get attention. That the party doing so lost (and lost big) in the last two national elections makes them willing to take chances.

But methinks one major reasons exits for all the furor.

Ignorance. By and large, Americans are poorly educated when it comes to history or really anything to do with foreign cultures. We soak up our images of other countries from popular culture--hence we imagine the English look and sound like characters on Masterpiece Theater. Given the sheer amount of stuff we get from the UK, this is at least mitigated by variety. Not so much France. Even less Russia (where James Bond films probably helped shape our notions of Moscow's citizens). But the Arab/Islamic world? That is a culture we've almost never seen in our films and television--at least not in ways more realistic than The Thief of Bagdad or Sinbad the Sailor. The only other image we've gotten of the Midlde East has been various kinds of thrillers in need of stock villains. Whereas once Nazis or Soviets or Mafiosi or Banana Republic dictators served, the current stereotypical foreign antagonist is an Arab Terrorist. Ever since the terrible Olympics Massacre in Munich, that has been the most telling icon of the Middle East in our collective minds--as real in our imagination as the monocled sadist in a German uniform. In its own way, that massacre was as big a shock in 1972 as 9/11 was a quarter-century later. It defined a region of the world, an ethnicity and a religion to those who knew next-to-nothing about any of them yet suddenly ignoring them impossible. Both these events made Arabs and Muslims real in a way Genies and flying carpets never could.

Nature abhors a vacuum. In the mind as in elsewhere. Without genuine knowledge, the few facts immediately available flowed in and were followed by assumptions, rumors and the wild accusations of those who know very little but think themselves experts. We take what we think we know of Arabs--often with images such as Jafar from Disney's Aladdin--and fill in the blanks.

Methinks this is anything but a conscious process.

When you think about it, such ignorance is more than a danger to peace-loving Muslim Americans. That I probably have to make the point that such exist is an example of this ignorance. Are all Irish Catholics supporters of the IRA? Timothy McVeigh was a Gulf War veteran--are all Gulf War veterans murderers of American children? Ted Bundy was a Mormon. Andrei Chikatillo was a Communist. John Wayne Gacy was a Jaycee. Jeffrey Dahmer was an alcoholic. Are all Mormons, Communists, Jaycees or alcoholics serial killers? Are they even fans of serial killers? Supporters of same? It literally makes zero sense of any kind to assume that all one-billion-plus Muslims are somehow supporters of terrorists. Especially since plenty of them have been victims of terrorists! Plenty denounce terrorism (although this last gets little enough coverage--probably because there's only so much space in any news venue and so much happening at any given time).

One of the most important military lessons is "Know Your Enemy," articulated by the great military strategist Sun Tzu. There can be little doubt that Muslim Extremists are a threat to the United States. Yet we, the electorate who chose this country's leaders, we by and large do not know our enemy. Instead of facts we swallow sweeping comments by pundits, comments very often false on their face. Most of us seem to have no notion that Islam is far more divided and fractured than Christianity. It simply does not and cannot speak with one voice. We realize very little about Middle Eastern history, which fuels the rage and despair so common in that area of the world (I would posit that if the Middle East were Christian, we'd be facing pretty much the same problems as today--religion is an excuse, there as elsewhere). Pundits and editorials make all kinds of claims about Islam, but are nearly always wrong--cherry-picking quotes and misinterpreting complex issues. Imagine if you will someone doing the same to the Bible and Christian history. Easy enough to do.

Give yourself this test. What is the real meaning of the word Jihad? How much do you actually know or believe you know about the life of Mohammed? The word sharia gets bounded about alot--but what does it actually mean? What nations are predominantly Muslim? What does the Qu'ran actually say about Christians, and about Jesus? Can you identify the man pictured here? He's a famous Muslim poet. Not perhaps the greatest or most famous, but he did write a verse that has haunted me ever since first hearing it.

O let my name be in the Book of Love

If it be there, I care not

About that other Book above.

Strike it out! Or write it in anew.

But let it be in the name of Love!

Violence and intolerance are indeed part of the history of Islam--simply because both are part of the history of Man. Yet such is not the whole story. We--by that I mean the human species--creates beauty as well as ugliness, virtue as well as vice. No segment of our race is devoid of the entire spectrum. If we are to win against the worst aspects of ourselves--ourselves as in all human civilization, Christian and Muslim, black and white and brown, etc.--we need to understand what we have in common.

Adding Politics to the Brew

2010-08-28T14:11:00.000-07:00

I've decided to make a small change here on my blog. From now on, every once in awhile, I will address current issues and events.

Politics, in other words.

No one need worry about this venue becoming a place where some one spews venom and hyperbole like it was going out of style. While I can wax vitriolic as much as the next person, such is not my goal. Nor hopefully is it my norm.

Rather I'd like to offer my own opinions on current issues, making valid observations as I see them. I'll not be spouting conspiracy theories. But holding a few up for ridicule is fair game. Not steadily though. Just as the focus on Night Tinted Glasses will remain history and certain genres of dramatic/literary art. Only now and then will I venture in politics.

By way of a warning/disclaimer/introduction allow me to give a quick precis of where I stand on various issues--and why I call myself a moderate. My views might seem somewhat more liberal than they are, mostly because (at least in my opinion) a very loud group of people on the far right are making so much noise these days. When I was going to university, folks on the far left were making just about as much fuss.

Abortion - I believe it should be legal, safe, available and rare. Restrictions on such make perfect sense to me, especially in the last trimester. But I do not consider the so-called "morning after" pill to validly belong even in debate on the subject.

Capitalism and Socialism - One of the things so few of my fellow Americans seem to realize is that virtually all industrial nations adopted a blend of these two many decades ago. Including this one. We do not in fact have to choose between one or the other, any more than we must decide whether to eat meat or vegetables. Folks can and often do enjoy both. Neither one is going anywhere, by the way.

The Environment - Methinks it takes some seriously large blinders not to realize this is an important issue, especially in light of recent events. Having grown up on the Gulf Coast of Florida, I am only too aware of what can and has gone wrong in our stewardship of this world's systems.

Faith - I am a quietly devout Christian of the Orthodox Church. Theologically I am very liberal. Like most Christians, my interpretation of the Bible is not literal. My belief is that the Bible was inspired , but not dictated, by God. And there is no genuine conflict between science and my faith, no matter what some folks insist must be the case.

Civil Liberties - Possibly the greatest glory of the United States was that we (at first a little reluctantly) enshrined into law the whole concept of "legal rights" and have ultimately proven their advocate. Making that idea workable is an ongoing and deeply divisive process. It is not a simple matter, nor should it be.

Some hopefully entertaining and (maybe) thought-provoking words may follow on these and other subjects. Now and then. You have been warned.

More Cellulloid Anticipation

2010-08-19T08:07:00.000-07:00

Haven't done one of these for awhile...

Quite simply, there are some movies not out yet to which I am hugely looking forward. Consider this a cinematic rorshach test if you will about what really goes on inside my soul. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Muhahahah...

One of these is Black Swan. I'll admit that what got my attention at first was the much-bally-hooed sex scene between stars Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis. But the idea of an intense psychological drama/thriller set in the world of ballet was intriguing in and of its own right. Then, earlier this week, I saw the trailer and was blown away. Click on the title above to see said trailer. Like the poster to the right, it was disturbing in an exciting way. From what I can gather, the lead character seems to be going mad. Or perhaps is already mad. Or (perhaps most intriguingly) is straying outside what is normal, safe and mundane--an artist who glimpses a world that exists in shadows and behind our backs. How that is different from insanity is another question, and I'm not sure an answer is particularly necessary.

Anyone who knows me very well realizes just how much I'm looking forward to Let Me In, based on the Swedish novel that already produced on the best vampire films ever (again, click on the title to see the red band trailer--not real sure why it is restricted, though). Chloe Moretz plays a little girl vampire who befriends a lonely, tortured boy played by Kodi Smit-McPhee. In an interview the latter put one aspect very well. She gives him, he says, "something to look forward to." Novel and first film created a strange, nightmarish and yet innocent, even sweet love story. More than one reviewer called this the anti-Twilight and while I don't share their (presumed) hatred of Myers' series, the logic is clear. No pulling of punches. No dreamy love interest who is a romance novelist's stereotypical ideal. For one thing, these are children, on the verge of sexuality but not there yet (and one will likely never be), yet still sensual. The vampire is not a "vegetarian." She cannot be.

The director (Matt Reeves of Cloverfield) stated in various forums that he wanted to make the setting of his film clearly American, in keeping with the themes of the novel. From the trailer and other hints, he seems to have done precisely that. Good! I don't want a carbon copy of the first film. What would be the point?

Another vampire movie I'm looking forward to--Suck, which after showing at film festival after film festival has finally gotten a DVD/Blueray release later this year. Over the past year or sot there've actually been a lot of trailers for this but I included my favorite (click the title). Vampire comedies are tricky, at least in my humble (HAH!) opinion. Most simply don't work. My own theory is that its a question of tone. Pure camp or silliness has its place (I say this as a huge fan of Red Dwarf and Monty Python as well as the late, lamented The State on MTV) but to my mind the best comedies explore the humor of these weird creatures called human beings. This seems to go double or even triple for comedies about no-longer-human creatures like vampires. My two favorite vampire comedies have plenty of jokes, but remained focused on the characters first and foremost (Love at First Bite and Sundown if you're interested). Having watched five or six different trailers for this movie I think it likely this one succeeds where so many others have failed. Just watch the trailer and you'll see what I mean.

August Blog Chain: Color????

2010-08-09T18:24:00.000-07:00

The AW August Blog Chain is upon us. As usual I am participating and the theme this month is -- If you had to pick one color, and one color only, for an aspect of your writing, which one would it be and why?

Honestly, this one was tricky. Offhand I'd no idea how to approach the subject, which is why I delayed joining the chain this time. Because I wasn't sure about taking part? Well, a little bit. Mostly, though, it was a matter of strategy. Allowed me to take a gander at how others went after the same theme. Heh heh.

But here is my answer. My writing is teal.

Precisely why is more of a puzzle. I'm not completely sure. That might indeed be a major reason for choosing this one. Say the word "teal" and in truth all kinds of shades come to mind. Yes, it is pretty clearly a blue-green or green-blue but like one of the primary colors it lends itself to dark versions, pale varieties, vivid teals, plain teals, etc. It sounds like it should be the color of the sea (and to be honest--the few months I've spent in my life away from the sea left me feeling out-of-tune in some way) but isn't quite. There are gemstones that come in teal, but no one specific such. In my imagination teal is associated with the orient for some reason, with artwork from that area of the world. Odd, since while I'm not ignorant of Asia it is hardly an area of study. As such.

Mind you, teal is considered (or can be) a shade of blue and that is my name! But methinks it is more telling that teal has enormous variety despite its relative simplicity as a color. Like my own world view, it is baroque rather than rococo. It can be, often is, an accent to darker colors like black. It reminds me of the earth, of rocks and stones. Often mottled, it has the complexity of a cloud or better yet a wall of mist against a landscape. Yet it can just as easily be a solid band of color, something simultaneously bright yet muted.

Whether any of this actually describes or harkens to my writing is for others to say. I can only not this what my writing seems to me. Or what I strive to make it.

The super summery participants of the August Coloring Blog Chain are:
Aheïla: http://thewriteaholicblog.wordpress.com and direct link to her post
Ralph_Pines: http://ralfast.wordpress.com/ and direct link to her post
AuburnAssassin: http://clairegillian.wordpress.com/ and direct link to her post
semmie: http://semmie.wordpress.com/ and direct link to her post
Anarchicq: http://anarchicq.com/ and direct link to her post
CScottMorris: http://www.cscottmorrisbooks.com/ and direct link to his post
PASeasholtz: http://www.paseasholtz.com/
LadyMage: http://www.katherinegilraine.com/
orion_mk3: http://nonexistentbooks.wordpress.com/

DavidZahir: http://zahirblue.blogspot.com/ <<YOU ARE HERE

NEXT >> aimeelaine: http://www.aimeelaine.com/writing/blog
Alpha_Echo: http://writersramblings81.blogspot.com/
FreshHell: http://freshhell.wordpress.com/
sbclark: http://sonyaclark.blogspot.com/

Carmilla Screen Treatment

2010-08-08T11:59:00.000-07:00

Okay I finally did it!

Last week I was suffering through a bout of writers' block, when on a whim my fingers began opening Word and started putting words down. Inside three days I had produced a screen treatment for Carmilla, based on Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu's famous vampire novella!

For those of you who don't know, a screen treatment is something akin to a detailed outline of a movie, a description of what the movie would be like to watch. Not a shot-by-shot, but a narrative to capture the "feel" as well as the story.

Cannot tell you how long I've been wanting to scratch that itch!

Don't know what I'll do with it, not yet. Perhaps if End of the Line really takes off, I'll be able to interest a movie studio. Hey, a guy can dream! For the record, I tried to make the title character both sympathetic and monstrous. Another goal was to remain faithful to the strange waiflike quality of the narrator, Laura. Part of that involved cutting one of the few characters and I know some folks will be distressed but so be it. Along the way I also found what I felt to be a good ending to this particular story. The novella's final pages are a good read but make for a poor set of scenes. But they do give a notion of what is in someways a straightforward destruction of the vampire coupled with Laura's own mixed feelings about her experience. Methinks I may have captured that, as well as suggesting a wonderfully spooky something as well.

Along the way, I also designed a coat of arms for the Karnsteins--that "wicked" and mostly extinct family from which Carmilla (and interestingly, Laura's mother) arose. Imagine if you will a heraldric wolf, pierced by two swords.

I'm also proud to have retained some of the my favorite little "bits" from the novella. Laura's insistence on having the portrait of "Countess Mircalla" in her bedchamber. The presence of both governesses as well as the advanced age of Laura's father (she was a late-life child clearly). The peddler/mountebank. The sleepwalking incident. Laura and Carmilla combing each others' hair.

Russian "Ten Little Indians" (Review)

2010-08-02T09:45:00.000-07:00

Spoilers ahoy!

Came across this little treasure on YouTube last week and was mighty impressed. Finding it elsewhere is likely to be quite a chore, but for now at least anyone can watch it online.

For those who don't know, Ten Little Indians or And Then There Were None is one of Agatha Christie's most famous and oft-adapted works of fiction. The title has undergone some changes over the years, indicating how some things have changed for the better. Quite by accident, I stumbled across a Russian version of the story filmed in 1987. It is easily and by far the best version--as well as being the most faithful.

The story is simple enough (which is often a hallmark of complex themes, not coincidentally). Ten strangers are invited to a mansion on a remote island off the coast of England. Some have been hired as staff, yet have never yet met their employer. Others are guests urged to come via friends, usually second-hand. But the hosts, a Mr. and Mrs. U.N. Owen ( i.e. "unknown") aren't present and after dinner the butler follows directions and puts on a specific record. Upon that record is the voice of a man accusing each person present of murder. All react in shock. Many do so with some measure of guilt. Within a few minutes one of them has died, poisoned by his drink.

Upon the wall of each person's bedroom is a nursery rhyme about "Ten Little Indians" and it isn't too long before someone remembers the first line: TEN little Indians went out to dine; One choked his little self and then there were NINE. Sure enough, the mysterious Mr. Owen intends to execute every one of them, using the nursery rhyme as a pattern.

Many previous adaptations of this book try to infuse humor into the proceedings. This one does not. Others have changed the locale, shifting it to an oasis or a sky lodge atop a mountain. But this film retained the island, and what an island! Literally a barren rock surrounded by mists and crashing waves--yet with mansion built into the rock like a small castle. Its interiors are comfortable, even luxurious, but with more than a hint of claustrophobia. Each guest reacts differently to the situation of course, but in this one even the laughter has an hysterical, uneasy ring to it.

Near the end, someone even points out "We're not human anymore. We've become beasts."

The characters are a broad range. A judge. A doctor who drinks too much. A former police officer governess. A retired general. As the story unfolds we learn also about their victims. A supposedly innocent man. The woman dead on an operating table. An innocent man framed, who died in prison. The lover of a commanding officer's wife, sent deliberately into harm's way. Rather like peeling an onion, the facade of civilization gives way to what sorts of people these really are--with the implied question about who are we the audience? Would we call running over a pair of children with our car a piece of "bad luck?" If we held a position of power over a helpless girl who'd gotten herself into trouble, would we dismiss her or offer to help? Here is where most adaptations (starting the stage play penned by Miss Christie) pull their punch. Two guests--a young man and woman--seem to hook up on some level. Other versions sweeten this, portraying it as a growing love affair. When they become the seemingly only two people left on the island, they simply cannot bring themselves to believe the other a murderer. And they are right! Not only are they themselves innocent, but the real killer has already faked his death and is waiting for them to kill each other.

But that isn't what happens in the book--nor in this film version. Everyone really is guilty. Oh sure, the real killer faked his death but otherwise his plan worked perfectly. The former governess is haunted by thoughts of the child she killed, an act of weakness on behalf of the man she loved who then rejected her. She turns to the arms of a ruthless young army officer in a desperate attempt to feel alive, or at least blot out her own despair and terror. At the end, she kills him. Discovering a noose hanging from the ceiling of her bedroom, she gives in to depression and fulfills the last stanza of the nursery rhyme: ONE little Indian left all alone; He went out and hanged himself and then there were NONE. Everyone is guilty. Everyone dies. But was that justice? And if it was, then is it a mere accident we ourselves haven't earned as much? More, is the desire for such justice any better than what it is punishing?

The performances in this film are uniformly good. Rather than becoming stock characters, each remains an individual. One even gets a sense of a life before this story begins, a subtle but vital point. More, there is a grittiness to them that seems real, rather than a glossy stereotype. The romantic male lead for example (who left 20 men to starve to death) is somehow both handsome and repellent at the same time.

Behold links by which you yourself can enjoy this remarkably faithful adaptation of Christie's murder mystery. Yes, there are English subtitles. You might also notice that the title is mistranslated, as one can figure out when looking at the figurines stolen/broken as each victim meets his or her fate.

Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five
Part Six
Part Seven
Part Eight
Part Nine
Part Ten
Part Eleven
Part Twelve
Part Thirteen

Noelle's Music

2010-07-22T09:36:00.000-07:00

I did this for Roy, the male lead in End of the Line (a web series I'm helping develop) and now I'd like to do it for his paramour--the Regency heroine-turned-vampire Noelle. Listen if you will to music that offers an insight into her soul...

Up until now, Noelle had one great love, someone who because of circumstances too obtuse to explain here and now, ended up spending many years right next to her yet out of reach. "Goodbye My Almost Lover" captures how she felt during the last years of his life.

"Pennies From Heaven", the Depression classic is a song that Noelle sometimes sings to herself to help her cope with all that has gone horribly horribly wrong. And in her mind's theatre, it is the rich and pain-knowing voice of Billie Holiday that echoes the lyrics of this song.

"Who Wants to Live Forever" by Queen is one of those songs that crept into Noelle's heart, mostly during the lonely decades before EOTL begins--when, in the wake of tragedies both sudden and grinding, she set off to be on her own, a hermit amid one crowded city after another. One you consider it, the reason should be pretty obvious.

I'm not sure if Noelle has ever seen the musical Wicked, but if she did the song "For Good" would resonate with her regarding her relationship to Cecily, her very best and very worst friend.

Although she doesn't realize it as the story begins, "What Would Happen If We Kissed?" really captures how Noelle finds herself feeling about Roy. It is a startling development to her--a woman who chose loneliness, who prefers to keep others at a distance (or so she tells herself).

I am a Guest Blogger, Part Deux!

2010-07-21T07:51:00.000-07:00

A post near and dear to my heart for Vampires.com--about Joseph Sheridan LeFau's Carmilla.

Dark Shadows 2004

2010-07-19T07:19:00.000-07:00

Well, I finally saw it--the unfinished pilot for a re-invention of Dark Shadows back in 2004. The WB pulled the plug before director P.J. Hogan completed it. Right now Tim Burton and Johnny Depp are planning on doing a major motion picture version.

Honestly, I'd heard lots of disparaging things about it. Among those who seemed to dislike this pilot intensely was the man who introduced it! He was something of a personal assistant to Dan Curtis, the original creator of the series. One thing mentioned over and over again was "not Dan's vision." When it came to details, one complaint was that actress Marley Shelton, who played Victoria Winters was "allowed" (yes, that was the word he used) to have blond hair.

Just for the record--I don't give a damn about Dan Curtis' vision. My judgment is based on what ended up on screen, the story told and the characters whose lives I'm supposed to care about. Curtis got to tell his version undiluted in the motion picture House of Dark Shadows. It was fun. It also lacked nearly every single element that made me care about the show in the first place. And multiple reports from those involved say how much Curtis opposed the whole idea of making Barnabas the vampire sympathetic at all.

(It occurs to me some might be unfamiliar with Dark Shadows. A "gothic soap opera" aired during the late 1960s, this was the first television show to portray a vampire with sympathy. It made its star, Jonathan Frid, for a time a star in rather the same way as Leonard Nimoy was during the same period.)

The pilot was shown as part of the 2010 Dark Shadows Festival in Burbank this last weekend. Amongst fans of the original show many the cutting criticism has been aimed at the 2004 pilot.

I liked it. Upon stating this to people after the event, I got some nods and a few incredulous looks. Listening to them, patterns emerged. One was intense dislike that a particular character seemed more physically attractive. Likewise another was less poised, less imperious. Both in terms of the pilot were minor characters given little development at that point. Methinks the former personal assistant (who also seems involved with the Curtis estate and is certainly pivotal in the DS Festivals) revealed much when he make disappointed/puzzled noises about the actress who played Carolyn--both in this and in the 1991 revival. He found their performances "odd." I found them both very good--genuinely rebellious young women with wild sides.

Overall, methinks the 2004 pilot worked as a startling re-imagining of the story, supported by a top-knotch cast. Although incomplete (whole scenes were never finished, many special effects were unfinished, etc.) one could see the "shape" of the work. I rather understand why the plug was pulled--mostly a matter of style, at least IMHO. It "felt" more like a film than a t.v. show. Light for example was highly stylized, in a manner I suspect would be extremely difficult to sustain for 22 hour-long episodes. There was also an unrelenting tone of mystery, suspense, danger, etc. Again, hard to sustain. Even more importantly the story was almost unrelenting in its lack of humor or kindness. Really, the only hint of such was in Vicki's slight interaction with David and with Carolyn's scene with Joe. Among other things, this robs the more dramatic moments of some power by making them fail to stand out. Keep in mind this would also be my criticism of the motion picture House of Dark Shadows. In the 1991 version, for example, some touching scenes involving Willie Loomis popped up almost every other episode. One reason I still prefer Frid's Barnabas over Ben Cross is that the former smiled and seemed to mean it.

Now to the good. A lot of plot holes from previous versions seemed closed. How for example did Willie not end up drained to the last drop by the no-doubt ravenous Barnabas? In this version, Willie has a girlfriend/accomplice who slakes the vampire's thirst. Julia Hoffman seems to take over the role given to Dave Woodard before now--a respected local doctor. Much more logical, and the glimpse we got of her conveyed a sharp intelligence coupled with a fascination over these strange attacks in Collinsport. David really does come across as a disturbed little boy, and Vicki as someone qualified to deal with him (which helps explain the equivalent of a governess in this day and age).

Performances seem excellent throughout, but most especially Carolyn (Jessica Chastain) and Roger (Martin Donovan), the latter coming across as someone with genuine complex reasons for his rather appalling behavior. Alexander Gould as David Collins also did extremely well. Barnabas, Vicki, Elizabeth and others did well but those three really shined. Matt Czuchry as Willie Loomis was more almost-funny than real, and frankly seemed to be mugging.

Like virtually all versions of Dark Shadows, this one feels rushed. Perhaps due to unfilmed scenes, the whole arrival of Barnabas and his taking over the Old House takes much too little screen time. Again, Vicki Winters is made the double (and presumed reincarnation) of Josette--a decision I disliked in 1991 and now. In the original show, Josette is a ghost. Barnabas, mentally disturbed to say the least, is engaged in an emotional tug of war between turning Josette look-alike Maggie Evans into a brainwashed copy of his lost beloved, or pursuing the love of someone here-and-now. The conflict between his past and his future was to me a very powerful one and while I understand the urge to simplify the tale, I miss the resonances. Angelique appears as a kind of evil ghost in the 2004 pilot, with the mild hint that she has become active again now that Barnabas is free--but we didn't really get to explore that idea in the pilot. I like that there was no effort anywhere to get actors who resembled the cast from the 1960s. Vicki Winters is blond, not brunette. Carolyn is a redhead, not blond. Ditto Angelique. Roger looks like a forceful, withdrawn man rather than the sarcastic dilletante we all knew back in the day. And so on.

Overall I was left even more frustrated that the series never made it to the air. What I saw intrigued me and left me wanting more. Methinks it might well have accomplished what any such remake so needs to do--draw in new fans, new viewers (in the manner of the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica--and with approximately as much howling from the die hard old fans).

New Murder on the Orient Express (Review)

2010-07-13T13:23:00.000-07:00

Spoilers ahoy!

For some time now David Suchet has been playing Agatha Christie's most famous (and eccentric) detective, Hercule Poirot. Along the way he has actually revisited several tales that had been filmed previously--The ABC Murders (in which Tony Randall played the great detective) as well as Evil Under the Sun and Death on the Nile (starring Peter Ustinov). Now a new version of what is arguably Dame Agatha's most famous mystery--Murder on the Orient Express. No small feat, given the reputation of the star-studded first version, with such luminaries as Albert Finney, Lauren Becall, Ingrid Bergman and John Gielgud.

This version, like many of the current versions, takes a different direction than previous ones. One trope common to most Christie adaptations is shredded away almost instantly. Like a real train, this Orient Express is in fact crowded. Trapped in a snow drift, they lose power and passengers are soon huddling together for warmth, visible only by candlelight. The comfort of these drawing room murder mysteries is gone--bringing into sharp relief the emotional turmoil inherent in the tale. Not merely for witnesses, but for Poirot himself!

Of course the basis story is essentially present. The Calais coach en route to Paris from Istanbul is surprisingly full for winter. At the last moment the director of the train line insists upon finding Poirot a berth. Passengers include a Russian Princess and her maid, a Missionary, a British Army Officer, a Hungarian noble couple, a physician, a car salesman, etc. One passenger, the unpleasant Mr. Ratchet (Toby Jones--you might know him as the Dream Lord from Doctor Who) wants to hire Poirot as protection--against what specifically he refuses to say. Poirot refuses and within a day Ratchet is discovered dead, stabbed to death in the middle of the night. Meanwhile, the train has hit a snow drift trapping and the passengers for at least a day or two. Poirot, at the director's insistence, investigates--and comes across one of the most startling solutions in his career. Much centers around the true identity of the victim--a vicious criminal named Cassetti, responsible for the kidnapping and murder of Daisy Armstrong five years earlier. This crime set off an avalanche of tragedy. The mother miscarried and died upon news of her child's corpse being found. The father, a war hero, killed himself--as did a French maid who fell under suspicion but was later proven totally innocent.

What fascinates is how this version really plays up the moral ambiguity. Nowhere more in the short-lived relationship between Poirot and the person who proves his true antagonist--Miss Debanham (Vanessa Redgrave in the 1974 film, now played by Jessica Chastain). Before the train departs, Poirot and she are both witness to a terrible sight--a man leading a crowd to chase down, then stone to death his wife whom he claims to having been unfaithful. Poirot, having just left a case wherein a man committed suicide after having been proven a liar (he panicked when someone he knew was killed in an accident) agrees this was "unpleasant" but also "she knew the rules." Miss Debanham sees further, that even if guilty that poor woman killed no one. How could that have been justice? Later in the story Poirot also meets Greta Ohlsson, who is his own morality taken to extremes. Slightly unstable, clearly traumatized, she proclaims Catholic doctrine wrong with its redemption and forgiveness--there are some crimes, she insists, God CANNOT forgive. And top of the list she puts violence against children.

Poirot's own Catholicism is on display in this film. Interestingly, he prays at the same time as does the victim. The Detective utters some homilies which seem sincere, while Ratchet/Cassetti almost weeps--but with more fear than contrition. Or so it seems.

Almost everyone reading this realizes who killed Cassetti. Everyone did it--all but Poirot himself and the director of the train line. Friends, relatives, loyal members of the Armstrong household--each had resolved to hunt down the man who murdered a child and destroyed so many lives. The gentle-seeming Governess, Miss Dabenham, is the ringleader--and her motivation, like the others', is so clearly an attempt to ease the horrible pain of an evil that shredded their lives. She herself was left with a useless right arm (from being bludgeoned the night of the kidnapping). Yet even this, a kind of vigilate's fantasy, is not so clear-cut. Princess Dragomiroff, beloved godmother to the late Mrs. Armstrong, recounts the murder in a way that both excites and chills. In this version, Cassetti was conscious for his murder--and the Princess' words "You will soon be in Hell...did you think we would not hunt you...?" were the last he ever heard.

The conflict treaded upon so carefully in the 1974 motion picture presents itself here as far more raw. Poirot does not wish to let these people get away with it. He makes an impassioned case. Without law, he says, we are barbarians. When the law and justice fail, that is the time to raise them even higher--not abandon them in the name of vengeance! Colonel Abuthnot (Sean Connery in 1974, David Morrissey now) actually draws his gun to insure keeping the secret, until Mary Debanham (whom he loves) virtually throws herself on the gun to stop him. Likewise, the others will not hear of it. They executed a guilty man. They will not slaughter someone else to keep a secret. Bad enough to have to live with committing one murder, however justified!

In the most famous film of this story, Poirot is troubled enough to let someone else make the decision. But in this version, allowing anyone else to do that is unthinkable. He will either tell the authorities the truth, or go along with the lie--and that he even considers the latter hits him like an earthquake. The straightforward, even ruthless man who begins this journey to Paris is not quite the same person who emerges from Orient Express a few days later. And he knows it. We can see it in his haunted eyes.

Just as we can see her knowledge that they have done this to him in the gaze of Miss Debanham.

Knight and Day (Review)

2010-07-12T09:10:00.000-07:00

Spoilers ahoy!

A dear friend of mine did something lovely for me. She got free passes to a test screening of the film Let Me In a week or so back. This is a flick I look forward to with fervor. She drove us both over twenty miles to the mall, arriving early, but then when we finally reached the front of the line we were told our demographics were filled. We couldn't come in.

Bugger.

But they did give us passes to see a free film at that multiplex that night. Ultimately we chose to see Knight and Day. For those of you who don't know, this is Tom Cruise's latest action flick and it co-stars Cameron Diaz with folks like Peter Saarsgard in supporting roles. Less than ten minutes into the film I turned to my friend and said "Three Days of the Condor as a romantic comedy." Such was my first impression and pretty much remained the case throughout.

Roy is a secret agent who bumps into June en route to a plane to Boston. Since Roy is on the run from the CIA (or somebody like it) June becomes swept away in a series of life-threatening adventures. Yeah, they fall in love. Is it funny? Oftimes, yes. In particular, there's this hilarious sequence where Roy drugs June to keep her calm in a terrible situation--i.e. they are surrounded by dozens of heavily armed soldiers-of-fortune. What follows are the moments when June floats to consciousness for a few moments to see some horrifying/exhilerating situation for a few seconds before losing it again. Her eyes open to see Roy suspended upside down next to jumper cables and a car battery--he says to her "I know this looks bad but I've got it covered." Next she notices herself aboard an airplane with Roy strapping a parachute to her back and getting ready to push her out. Then she's on a boat in the middle of the ocean...

You get the idea.

In truth the whole flick is quite charming, if you're in the mood for something like it. Mind you, I'm awfully glad not to have forked over ten bucks to see it. Plus it never really pushes its quality over into something really compelling. In theatre one often reads or hears comments about the "well-made play" which is a nicely crafted plot according to some well-proven tricks of the trade. Well, Knight and Day is the cinematic equivalent. No real surprises. No risks taken. Complexity eschewed in favor of a smooth story, as opposed to a fascinating one. Well-done character quirks instead of character depth. What one ultimately gets is not a hearty meal but a pleasing h'ors deurve.

And I'm still trying to figure out the title. "Knight" makes sense well enough, for at least three reasons I can see. But "Day"???? Diaz means "day." Plus there is a cute (even slightly evocative) line about the word "someday" at the start and end of the film. But it is still a poor title that had me scratching my head.

I am a Guest Blogger!

2010-07-07T18:45:00.000-07:00

Check in out: Let Me In Vs Let The Right One In.

July 2010 Chain: Meeting Marko

2010-07-05T08:00:00.000-07:00

Tis time again for the Blog Chain from the Absolute Writers Water Cooler. In this case we're to show our antagonist in a positive light. Well, I'm again returning to the web series I'm working on right now, End Of The Line. The part isn't cast yet, so I'm not sure what Marko will end up looking like. He's Styrian (that's a part of Austria) and aristocratic, charming and sexy and oh so ruthless. For a reason. One has to wonder how his life might have gone if only...

Anyway. One face that immediately springs to mind is that of Toby Stephens, son of two very distinguished British actors and with a quite a respectable career in his own right. For example, he got to play Rochester in Jane Eyre as well as Bond villain (how cool is that!?). But the part might just as easily be taken by Ben Barnes (of Prince Caspian and Dorian Grey fame) or Chris Pine (these days best known as the latest incarnation of Captain James T. Kirk).

At first I was going to meet Marko myself, but oddly enough that isn't how things happened...

"Mr. Branzer?" The chair made little sound as it slid across the carpet. Johnston rose as he moved that chair, precisely as he'd practiced time after time. Clients didn't want to see an attorney with human flaws. They paid for competence sublime and unflappable. Johnston prided himself on just such competence. He practiced.

"Yes," said the man stepping inside the office. Johnston judged him to be thirty at first glance, then mentally added ten years a second or two later. Something about those eyes. "I am sorry to be late." He was supposed to have been here three minutes ago. Germans and their punctuality.

"No worries," Johnston waved away that concern. "Please sit."

"Thank you." Marko Branzer didn't so much sit in the leather armchair offered as he claimed it. Johnston felt a stab of envy at his client's grace, and the way he managed to wear what was after all a rather old if elegant suit. To Johnston's practiced eye, a few telltale signs of wear had begun to show. One cuff frayed in the tiniest way. A brass button barely more loose than its fellows in the charcoal gray vest. A tie slightly faded. Shoes ever so slightly more scuffed than one might expect. Each detail possibly meaningless alone, but combined forming a specific message. Here was a man descended from what he had been. The suit was Saville Row, but not recent. A shirt good, but not the best. Yet here was a man who clearly was used to the best. That he was going without gave Johnston a mild pleasure.

"I am pleased to announce we've had success with out inquiries, Mr. Branzer."

"And by success you mean--?"

"The title to which you referred in your letters, that title is indeed vacant and therefore you may with reasonable certainty petition to claim it for yourself."

Johnston did not see the reaction he expected. In his experience, the distant relatives of noble families enjoyed the prospect of a title, of being able to call themselves The Right Honorable or His Excellency. A smile was common, often subtle but sometimes quite obvious and delighted. Some changed their posture, drawing themselves up as if they'd earned some kind of prestige by what was in truth just an accident of history. Not this one. Mr. Marko Branzer just stared at Johnston, stared without blinking until the attorney almost cleared his throat.

"If I may expound," he began, "the Von Alphsteins proper were of course reduced in the wake of the First World War. Three sons and two daughters died before it was over. Casualties on the front or victims of the Influenza. I don't know if you were aware, Mr. Branzer, but the autumn of 1918 saw one of the greatest health disasters in human history."

"The Spanish Flu," replied the man in front of him. "I am very familiar with it. Across the globe millions died, more than in the Great War to that date, and in a mere handful of weeks." He spoke low and looked away at the end.

"As it happens," said Johnston, "the Baron's oldest son and youngest daughter both perished."

"But the Baron himself survived? Or not?"

"For a time. He suffered a stroke and his middle daughter Greta cared for him until 1924." At the mention of the daughter's name, Branzer turned again to stare at Johnston.

"What happened to her?"

"She was your great grandmother I believe?"

"My grandfather and she were close."

"Quite so, quite so. I would hope they remained in correspondence, at least for a time?"

"Not as long as either of them would have wished, Mr. Johnston. But--what became of her?"

Johnston made himself sigh and rearranged his features in a mask of professional compassion.That mask had been the work of years and he was proud of it, taking a genuine pleasure in seeing its impact. "She had lost so much, you see," said Johnston, "and I fear she did not get along well with the remaining son of her own generation, the new Baron."

"Alois."

"That was his name, yes."

"He was a swine." Branzer's voice did not rise above a whisper, and every word dripped venom. Johnston did a take.

"Your knowledge," he said after a moment, "of their personal relationships--gleamed no doubt from your grandfather, I presume--cannot help but be more accurate than my own." Johnston now feared the worst. Some people got lost in the past, took everything personally, feeling the passions of strangers as if they had anything to do with the here and now. Adjusting his mask accordingly, Johnston did his best empathic nod while quietly adding another ten percent to the bill. "I'm sorry to say she died in 1925."

"The cause of death?"

Johnston inwardly braced himself for unpleasantness. "The local coroner ruled it a suicide." His reading conveyed just enough doubt to hopefully give an injection of comfort.

"I don't believe that." This Branzer spoke without rancor, almost not even addressing Johnston at all. Typical of the type. Egocentric to the bone.

"We have copies of the official report, should you wish to peruse them."

"No need. No purpose at this point."

"As you wish."

Branze now moved with a speed that astonished Johnston. He produced a cigarette case from the interior pocket of his not-quite-the-best coat, and a matching lighter. A tiny dark cigarette appeared as if by magic on Branzer's lips. Johnston noticed this in the exact instant the cigarette became lit. Then case and lighter disappeared. It seemed to have taken a tenth of second. No more. Perhaps less.

"Knowing Uncle Alois as I did," said Branzer in a low voice, "whether he put the pistol in her hand or held it himself--the difference was no more than academic." He took a long drag on the cigarette. "What date?"

"Excuse me?"

"Upon what date did my--did Greta von Alphstein die?"

"She...she shot herself--you were quite correct about the method--on the twenty first of June."

"On my birthday."

True or not, Johnston found that detail distasteful. "How extraordinary." He managed to keep a neutral tone.

"Not so much, either way." Branzer took another deep drag, allowing the smoke to wreathe about him. The effect was startling, mesmerizing, and to Johnston ratehr common. "And dear Uncle Alois? What did fate have in store for him? Had he married?"

"Twice actually, both times to young women of good family and considerable fortune."

"Were there children?"

"As it turned out, no."

"No, there wouldn't be." An old hate shone in Branzer's eyes, a hate born from pain. Johnston was experienced enough to recognize the signs, and feel put upon by having to experience it even second hand. Third hand in this case. "How soon did each of them die?"

"'The first died soon after the first World War. The second shortly before the Second."

"Alois outlived her?"

"He did."

"Of course."

"But I might as well admit, Mr. Branzer, that Baron Alois von Alphstein came under suspicion for his second wife's death. There were evidently police inquiries following complaints from her family."

"Mr. Johnston--are you about to tell me justice was indeed done?"

"That perhaps is beyond the scope of my knowledge, sir. I can tell you the investigations were ongoing when the Baron met with an accident. His automobile slipped on a patch of ice one night and spun out of control. He suffered numerous broken limbs as well as other injuries."

"Did he die of them?"

"Eventually."

"When?"

"Six months or thereabouts."

The handsome client took another long drag on his cigarette. Closed both eyes as he did so. "Do you have family, Mr. Johnston?" he asked after an eternal several seconds.

"I do indeed."

"One hopes you and they are somewhat strangers to each other."

Johnston blinked, absorbing his client's words. Several responses immediately came to mind. His genuine reaction--startled distaste as such a baffling and boorish comment--did not. Honestly was rarely the wisest answer, in his experience. "Oh?" he finally said.

"Intimacy carries its own horrors, you see. Expectations coupled with the most intense of judgments, choices limited by a thousand thousand demands until answering them becomes habit. I've often considered how a relationship resembles a horse and its rider. The parent, like a jockey, squats upon the child's back and gives directions. Words and actions are like reins. All the power that an adult has over a child functions essentially as does a bit. Family traditions like blinders over the eyes. Pity the vast majority, Mr. Johnston, who never throw their rider off, who don't manage to jump the fence. It isn't easy. The rider, after all, has a crop. And even the best of them use it." Suddenly, Marko Branzer stopped. He lifted one hand to his cheek, a look of astonishment on his face. His eyes opened and stared at his fingers as they came away.

Oh dear God. The man was crying. Johnston looked around him, seeing if a box of kleenex or something might be nearby. His clients weren't usually so emotional. Finally, he remembered some were in his least-used drawer, the bottom left. He opened it, reached in and took out an unopened box of tissues. Soon, his fingers had removed the top. He turned to his client.

The chair was empty. The door finished closing. In the air a trace of scented tobacco lingered.

Don't know if I succeeded or not. Perhaps you'll let me know?

Here is the list of participants to the July Blog Chain:
CScottMorris: http://cscottmorrisbooks.com/
Aheïla: http://thewriteaholicblog.wordpress.com
AuburnAssassin: http://clairegillian.wordpress.com/
Collectonian: http://collectonian.livejournal.com/
DavidZahir: http://zahirblue.blogspot.com/
IrishAnnie: http://superpenpower.blogspot.com/
Anarchicq: http://anarchicq.com/
Proach: http://everythinghistorical.wordpress.com/
devero: http://mysticcrossroads.wordpress.com/
bri ness: http://briallison.blogspot.com/
hillaryjacques: http://www.hillaryjacques.blogspot.com/
LadyMage: http://www.katherinegilraine.com/
M.R.J. Le Blanc: http://libraryofandunien.blogspot.com/
Mariekeme: http://www.mariekenijkamp.com/
aimeelaine: http://www.aimeelaine.com/writing/blog
Lyra Jean: http://lyratorres.wordpress.com/
Fokker Aeroplanbau: http://rightfarright.blogspot.com/
Irissel: http://irissel.blogspot.com/
CowgirlPoet: http://frontnotes.blogspot.com/
Alpha Echo: http://writersramblings81.blogspot.com/
cryaegm: http://enigmainklings.blogspot.com/

Project News (End of the Line)

2010-07-01T06:18:00.000-07:00

End of the Line is a project a friend of mine and I are working on together. It will be a web series, initially composed of twelve ten-minute episodes to be available on YouTube (among other places).

What is it about, you may ask? Imagine, if you will, Dexter Meets Twilight. That'll give you some idea. Or if you want more.. "Girl vampire with a young soul meets Boy human with a very old one. Together they try and solve his father's murder." It is set in a fictional city called Alexander Bay somewhere in northern California. The two met on the mass transit train system, since they both live in a former fishing village at the outskirts of the city, called the Isle of Cats. One of the train lines finishes there, hence the title. But the title means a lot more than that. For example, our hero is the last of his father's children--the end of his father's line. Just as our heroine is the last vampire created by a certain other vampire--she being the end of that line. Emotionally, both are at the end of where they have been and must begin something new or stagnate. And so on.

If you're a regular reader of this blog you've even met them. A few months back our vampire talked with me in the posted dubbed "Meeting Noelle." A little later was the post "Meeting Roy."

Such are their names. Noelle and Roy. For the record, each is something of a pun. Noelle's is the more obvious, but you probably don't have a chance of figuring out the pun with his name until I tell you the rest of it. Roy Istvan. Maybe that'll help. Be warned--it is pretty obscure.

Noelle and Roy. Frankly we hope this pair will go down with Edward and Bella, Barnabas and Josette, Nick and Natalie, Buffy and Angel, Bill and Sookie.

I'll keep you posted as things go along. Lots of things to share, like a map of Alexander Bay. And news about the graphic novel (we seem to have found an artist). There's to be a reading of the first few scripts later this month. Plus the website, the Twitter account, the YouTube Channel and Facebook pages, etc.

Have you noticed one especially different about this so far? Yep--the girl is the vampire in this one.

Playlist Altered!

2010-06-26T12:56:00.000-07:00

Just a quick head's up to those who read this blog regularly. I've removed some songs from the playlist and replaced them. A cleansing of the auditory palate, as it were.

Review: "Alejandro" by Lady Gaga

2010-06-17T14:10:00.000-07:00

I make no secret of the fact that I like Lady Gaga. She seems to me a magnificent performance artist, and the very bizarre nature of so many of her shows seems designed to startle, upset, disturb.

Her latest music video, "Alejandro", is a case-in-point. Frankly I'm partly amused and partly disappointed at some of the response to it. Before actually seeing the video (on YouTube) I saw/listened to/read reviews to the effect that it made no sense, was about nothing, etc.

Then I saw the video.

It begins with this woman surrounded not only by social convention (a public parade, herself literally being in a window, a funeral) and clearly isolated via technology (she's almost a Borg in some ways). And then the music begins. She sings of being unable to be with Alejandro, nor with Fernando, amid images of intense sexuality and sensuality. Mind you, we're not talking porn or anything like it. Lots of an lots scantily clad young men, in and out of bed, embracing her and each other, dancing in a way that suggests intercourse/foreplay/afterglow, etc.

Much has been made of the religious imagery used, as if that were somehow unique or odd. C'mon folks--Madonna did "Like A Prayer" how many years ago? For that matter, is it really much of a surprise to discover the link between the sensual and the divine? Nun erotica is just as much a genre as lesbian vampires or women-in-prison. This is news? Really?

As for meaning, seems like a straightforward portrayal of someone struggling with sexual desires in a place (like here and now) where such are the inspiration for intense guilt. The narrator (Narratrix? Is that a word? Methinks it should be) is trying to suppress her feelings, which of course tends to make them stronger. She goes in public and finds her imagination turning a bunch of soldiers into her own male harem. As a nun, she exults in the feel of her costume and the submission of the calling. Surrounding herself with machines, the touch of those machines only make her more aware of her own body. Everything reminds, invokes, inspires her own complex feelings and urges that she doesn't understand and as yet cannot really handle. Rather than a storyline, the song functions like a poem (which in some sense is precisely what it is) -- not teaching a lesson but capturing a moment, a feeling, a paradox, or a situation.

The answers, if any, lie in ourselves. Lady Gaga is an example of an artist with strong opinions, but whose art does not in fact tell you the audience what to think.

Bravo.

I know that we are young
And I know that you may love me
But I just can't be with you like this anymore
Alejandro
She's got both hands In her pocket
And she won't look at you
(won't look at you)
She hides true love
En su bolsillo
She's got a halo around her finger
Around you
You know that I love you boy
Hot like Mexico
Rejoice
At this point I've gotta choose
Nothing to lose
Don't call my name
Don't call my name
Alejandro
I'm not your babe
I'm not your babe
Fernando
Don't wanna kiss
Don't wanna touch
Just smoke my cigarette, hush
Don't call my name
Don't call my name
Roberto
Alejandro
Stop Please, just let me go
Alejandro Just let me go
She's not broken
She's just a baby
But her boyfriend's like her dad
Just like a dad
And all those flames that
Burned before him
Now he's gotta firefight
Gotta cool the bad
You know that I love you boy
Hot like Mexico
Rejoice
At this point I've gotta choose
Nothing to lose Don't call my name Don't call my name Alejandro

New Dracula!!!

2010-06-15T07:00:00.000-07:00

This is exciting to me. I should explain--one of my projects this year is getting a new web series off the ground. One hero for me in this effort is the staff of The Guild, but another is a gentleman who goes by the name Theodore Trout. He is the star and evidently guiding force behind an amazing, original production of Bram Stoker's novel. Dracula, Lord of the Damned looks like it was done on a budget that would pay for maybe a nice car, but with a startling imagination behind it (as well as lots of elbow grease).

In essence, the conceit of this production is that Dracula truly is the Lord of the Damned--the literal anti-christ who feels himself a great benefactor. After all, does he not bring truth and eternal life?

Well, he believes he does.

This version fairly drips with atmosphere, a dream like quality in virtually every frame. The costumes and sets cannot help but be rudimentary (see comment about the budget above) but one hardly realizes this. For one thing the camera work almost defines simple but effective. When Harker first approaches Castle Dracula, for example, it is by boat and the interplay of Harker's POV approaching landfall (with a suitably erie, ancient staircase) as well as a shot from land showing the boat bringing him is so simple--yet works extremely well.

Kudos also to the retention of virtually every major character. Usually, Lucy's three suitors are reduced to one or two, often none. This, like Bram Stoker's Dracula and the BBC adaptation with Louis Jourdain, includes the whole trinity. As far as I know this is also the sole version that ever has had Renfield the object of Victorian-era brain surgery (as he is in the original novel).

Is it perfect? No. The biggest weakness is the cast. When compared to some of the fine performers who have taken on these roles in the past--Kate Nelligan, Gary Oldman, Christopher Plummer, etc.--the repertory company here suffers. It isn't that they do a poor or even mediocre job. Not at all! In fact, they manage to capture the style of the film with their performances very well. But honestly, this Van Helsing is no Anthony Hopkins nor this Dracula a Denholm Elliott. Yet, they are good if overwhelmed by the style of the production.

Below you will find a trailer. You can get a lot more information (including other teasing clips and a way of ordering a copy) at Mr. Trout's YouTube Channel.