Thursday, 6 November 2014

Favorite Characters: Ned (Pushing Daisies)

 
Pushing Daisies was the first Bryan Fuller show I ever loved, and Ned was the first Bryan Fuller character I ever adored.  The series is packed to the gills with delightful, vibrant characters, but it’s the lanky pie maker who won me over the quickest and the most completely.  He’s a wonderfully built-from-the-ground-up character, so understandably a product of his experiences that, despite the magic and whimsy of the show (and Ned himself,) he feels nothing but genuine.
 
If, before watching Pushing Daisies, you’d asked me to describe someone who could bring the dead to life with a touch of his finger, I have no idea what I would’ve come up with.  With Ned, though, I can’t help but think, “Of course!”  You might think someone who’d discovered such extraordinary powers at a young age would develop a potent god complex, that he’d feel above the laws of men and nature and carry with him a sense of invincibility.  But young Ned’s crash course on his powers included the sudden death and resurrection of his mother (first touch:  life,) the even more sudden and cruel second death of his mother (second touch:  dead again, forever,) and the inadvertent death of his best friend’s father (keep a dead thing alive for more than a minute, and something else has to die.)  The man is damaged, and he comes by it honestly.
 
As such, it makes perfect sense that he grows into someone closed-off, lonely, and incredibly cautious.  It’s logical that he adheres to things so rigidly, because knowing the rules of his powers is the only way to prevent devastation.  Until Emerson learns of Ned’s powers and proposes a waking-the-dead P.I. partnership, he only renews dead fruit to make eternally-fresh pies.  He walks through the world like he’s folding into himself, hunched up with his arms folded to avoid unintentional resurrections.  Furthermore, as someone who lost everyone who mattered to him as a child, he loves deeply but worriedly, and he clings even as he berates himself for being clingy.  He’s uncomfortable in his skin around other people, even living people, like he still feels his mother dying irreversibly when she kissed him good night.  When you think about it, it’s a wonder he’s as reasonably well-adjusted as he is.
 
Because, all things considered, he really is.  Yes, he’s shy and a little awkward, and he keeps secrets almost possessively, but he’s also bright and kind.  We tend to see him more at ease when he’s talking to the dead, getting any information that will help solve their murders.  Though he keeps a punctilious eye on his ever-present stopwatch, he becomes relaxed and conversational, treating them like people rather than freaks (I love the scene in the pilot where he chastises Emerson for using terms like “zombies” and “living dead.”)  And it’s true that, at first glance, his nervousness might seem to be his defining characteristic, but he’s capable of real bravery and heroism when the situation calls for it.  The more traditional bravery, of course – confronting dangerous people, thinking on his feet in tight situations – but he also displays a less showy bravery reserved for shy, tightly-wound people.  Over the course of the show’s two seasons, we see how incredibly far he steps beyond his comfort zone, how he swallows his nerves to open himself up to new people and experiences.
 
As with so many terrific Bryan Fuller characters, I’m reminded of one of George’s lines from Dead Like Me, the one about “respecting somebody for being a mess because you’re a mess too.”  Like the others, Ned is a fantastic mess, entirely relatable despite his extraordinary circumstances, and it’s a treat to root for him to find his way.

Wednesday, 5 November 2014

Further thoughts on But I’m a Cheerleader

 
For Megan and the other participants at True Directions, they’re expected to straighten up – literally – but not many of the tasks and assignments they’re given to perform are related to their attraction to members of the same sex.  Rather, much of the so-called reparative program is focused on gender policing.  (Note:  I’ll be discussing some spoilers from the movie.)
 
Once the kids confess their homosexuality, they’re immediately dressed in “appropriate” colors:  blue for the boys, pink for the girls.  They’re instructed endlessly on the roles of men and women and given different lessons according to these roles.  The girls, for instance, need to vacuum, change diapers, scrub floors, and cross their legs in a ladylike manner, whereas the boys are expected to fix cars, chop wood, catch footballs, and play war games.
 
In this way, the kids’ femininity or masculinity is a litmus test for their orientation.  Those regarded as making the most progress are girls who know how to sit in a skirt, boys who don’t act like “sissies.”  Feminine cheerleader Megan is held up as a role model to the other girls, and when two boys are caught fooling around, Dolph, a wrestler, receives the harshest lecture because they “expected better” from him.  Feminine girls and masculine boys aren’t “supposed” to be gay, so the way to heteronormalize teens is to make them adhere to rigid gender roles. 
 
It’s as if, deep down, they realize they don’t know how to “teach” the kids to be straight.  They don’t know how to condition away existing feelings of attraction and condition in new ones, and even if they did, there’s no way they could monitor or measure it.  So they turn their attentions on something tangible:  the kids’ gender presentation.  That’s something they can see, it’s behavior the kids can be taught to mimic.  Start from the outside in – make them look/act straight, and the corresponding straight feelings will just happen as a result.
 
But of course, that doesn’t wash.  It doesn’t matter that Dolph is athletic or that Megan wears sundresses.  He falls in love with a boy and Megan falls in love with a girl.  Throughout the program, it’s made abundantly clear that, whatever supposed progress the kids are making to act appropriately femme or butch, they’re still every bit as gay as they always were.  One especially dramatic example comes when Andre is cut before graduation because he’s too “sissy,” and another boy’s encouragement starts with “nice” and “smart” and quickly segues into “sexy” and “firm.”  A dejected Andre snaps, “The last thing I need right now is some fruit who’s just proved himself straight tellin’ my ass how sexy I am!”  Meanwhile, no one believes butch, softball-playing Jan when she comes out as straight, tearfully admitting that she “can’t help” liking guys.   With her shaved head and baggy pants, True Directions declares that she’s “not straight yet.”
 
Despite the inundation of these stereotypes, the kids understand internally that their orientation is more than how they dress or behave.  Megan doesn’t believe she’s a lesbian when the “evidence” given at her intervention is her Melissa Etheridge poster, vegetarianism, or Georgia O’Keeffe pillow.  It doesn’t click for her until one of the other kids at True Directions points out that most girls don’t think what she does when she looks at other girls – she just assumes they do.  That’s when she puts it together, and all the ensuing gender policing doesn’t make her straight.  The only reason she’s gay is because she falls in love with girls, and regardless of how masculine or feminine the other kids are, the same is true for them.

Tuesday, 4 November 2014

But I’m a Cheerleader (1999, R)

 
Before Natasha Lyonne was the awesome Nicky on Orange is the New Black, she was the awesome Megan in this indie film, which is somehow campy and scathing at the same time.  Sure, it’s a bit cheesy, a bit preachy, but it’s a fine satire on heteronormative conversion therapy.
 
Pretty, sweet, church-going cheerleader Megan is blindsided when her family and friends stage an intervention to drop a bombshell on her:  she’s a lesbian.  Her parents, who assure her that they just want her to be “normal” and “healthy,” send her to True Directions, a two-month program that promises to de-gay her.  Despite Megan’s initial insistence that she has nothing in common with the other teens in the program, she soon takes a hard look at her own sexuality.  For a while, she’s a model participant, but a reluctant friendship with another girl grows into something much deeper, and for once, Megan realizes she can’t simply do as she’s told.
 
As with Nan in Tipping the Velvet, I like that Megan comes into her sexuality unawares.  She’s not just resistant when her friends and family confront her – she literally doesn’t know what they’re talking about and doesn’t believe them.  She hasn’t been wrestling with secret feelings that she’s ashamed of.  Rather, she carries on modestly with her boyfriend in a disinterested manner, assuming that no one really likes kissing and everyone looks at other girls.  She doesn’t think of herself as “wrong” until other people start putting their prejudices on her.
 
Tonally, it sometimes feels like two different films.  A lot of the True Directions stuff is cranked-up-to-11 satire, including lessons on “appropriately” gendered activities and a simulated how-to on heterosexual loving featuring flesh-colored body stockings with Adam-and-Eve leaf designs over the naughty bits.  Conversely, Megan’s blossoming romance with Graham is sweet, grounded, and sexy, an earnest coming-of-age love story.  Both halves are great on their own, but while they don’t always gel together, I don’t think the film would be as compelling with only one or the other.  It ultimately needs both, and I forgive any cohesion weirdness in order to get them. 
 
Similarly, heavy material is dealt with in the midst of the campiness.  True Directions’ methods are patently ridiculous (and horrifying at times – the kids have devices they’re supposed to shock themselves with when they have “inappropriate” thoughts,) but for some of the teens, their families will only welcome them back if they complete the program and come out straight.  Even something as silly as a bored Megan ineptly making out with her boyfriend is tinged with sadness, because she thinks that’s all love is and doesn’t realize she could have so much more.
 
In addition to Natasha Lyonne, who’s equally hilarious and affecting, the film costars Clea DuVall (I always remember her best as Georgina in Girl, Interrupted) as the girl Megan falls for.  RuPaul appears out of drag as an “ex-gay” conversion therapist, and the movie also features Michelle Williams (I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – I love everyone from The Station Agent,) Melanie Lynskey (Pauline in Heavenly Creatures,) and Dante Basco (Rufio!)
 
Warnings
 
Language (including homophobic slurs,) lots of sexual references, sexual content (including an artful sex scene,) drinking, and smoking.

Monday, 3 November 2014

Silent Style: Fatty Arbuckle and Buster Keaton


Other than Buster Keaton, Fatty Arbuckle is the only silent clown whose work I’ve seen a modest sample of, and even then, I’ve mostly just seen his collaborations with Buster.  Still, it’s interesting to look at the differences between Buster’s work and the shorts he made with Fatty.
 
We begin with the strangest feature of Fatty’s shorts:  Buster’s smile!  Though he began using the stone face during his childhood vaudeville days, he evidently wasn’t sure about doing the same in movies.  He still tends to default to stone face, but there are many shorts in which he smiles, laughs, cries, or otherwise mugs.  Besides being bizarre to see (it feels wrong to see his teeth so well,) it truly isn’t as funny, and I don’t know what it is.  Maybe it’s because the faces he pulls are too big and don’t feel genuine?  Either way, he really is funnier when he doesn’t smile.
 
Each man has a different go-to comic set-piece.  For Buster, it’s clearly “chase scene.”  In films like Cops and Seven Chances, the story exists mainly to justify the epic chases at the end, and The General is essentially a series of chases topped with a bridge collapse.  When in doubt, give him someone to run from.  Fatty’s main mode of action, based on the shorts I’ve seen, seems to be “brawl.”  Many of his movies involve long, often messy fights.  Kicks, punches, and all sorts of thrown objects crop up in various knockdown-drag-outs.  Buster’s first onscreen stunt was taking a sack of flour to the face in The Butcher Boy, a film that also features the only pies thrown in his silent career (Fatty’s sets must’ve been covered with ants – so much food-throwing.)  Not that Buster’s movies don’t have a fair share of slapstick violence, but he’s much more rough-and-tumble in Fatty’s shorts.  He’s a regular scrapper, and an impressive one; in His Wedding Night, his scissor-kicks a guy in the face apropos of basically nothing.
 
Drag is a big feature of Fatty’s movies.  Nearly half of the thirteen Fatty-Buster shorts have extended drag sequences, including disguises, mistaken identities, and instances of one man unknowingly flirting with another.  Buster himself gets dolled up for the play in Back Stage, delivers and models wedding dresses in His Wedding Night, and plays an actual woman briefly in Good Night, Nurse (the latter’s not exactly drag – just easier to throw a skirt on Buster and cover his face than to find an actress who can do the stunts.)  Buster’s work includes a little drag:  he plays a few women in the dream sequence in The Playhouse, and he briefly dons dresses to make getaways in Our Hospitalityand Sherlock Jr.  However, it’s not nearly as prominent.
 
Lastly, Buster’s films tend to feel more cohesive.  Though many of his shorts meander, they often form a chain of cause-and-effect.  Even shorts that are a series of vignettes around a specific set or theme, like The Boat, build and come to a head.  Fatty’s shorts feel more slapdash.  When I reviewed my top five shorts of his, I found they were hard to summarize beyond giving the setting, and there are more comedic tangents not tied back to the film as a whole.
 
I’m not getting down on Fatty; I really enjoy the films he and Buster made.  They’re tons of fun, there are some great gags, and Buster’s athleticism is insane.  Like Buster, Fatty knew how to use the camera to his advantage, and he had a fine imagination.  I’d like to see more of his work – the humor and style in the Fatty-Buster shorts becomes more Buster-ish over time, and I wonder what, if any, changes there are in Fatty’s films before/after working with Buster (plus those made while Buster was overseas in WWI.)  Not sure how much is extant, but I’m curious.

Sunday, 2 November 2014

Doctor Who: Series 8, Episode 11 – “Dark Water” (2014)

 
It’s been a couple years since Who has had a proper two- (or three-) part finale.  I’ve missed that penultimate-episode insanity, those incredibly amped-up stakes.  “The Pandorica Opens” has one of the show’s best cliffhangers, and “Utopia” and “The Sound of Drums” both go out on ridiculously suspenseful notes (too bad those two are followed up by ham-fisted resolutions – series 3 definitely ends with a whimper.)  I was looking forward to that again, but unfortunately, “Dark Water” doesn’t have a big “pow!” ending.  Yes, it gives us some big reveals, some big monsters, and some big world domination-ish plans, but I was hoping for a real “??!?!!” moment.
 
As for the rest of the episode, it has a definite part 1 feel, and while it sets some interesting things in motion, I can’t ultimately judge it until I see how the dust settles next week.  (Also, I’m going to have to do a more spoilery write-up sometime after the finale – it’s hard to talk about revelatory episodes without giving anything away.)  Chiefly, this episode gives us forward momentum on the season arc, which, come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve actually mentioned in any of my previous reviews:  the mysterious “Promised Land” we’ve seen cropping up for various deceased one-shot characters and Missy, the demented Mary Poppins type who appears to oversee it.  We get a better look inside this apparent after-life, and the Doctor and Clara meet Missy and see her unorthodox activities and obsession with the Doctor first-hand.
 
A day later, I’m still not sure what I think about all of it.  The foreshadowing for the big alien threat is good, although it would’ve been even better if the show hadn’t featured them in the end-of-episode trailer last week.  I like the Promised Land/Nethersphere stuff – the concept is totally Moffat nightmare fuel, and I like how it ties in with the aforementioned alien threat.  It’s a connection that really makes sense and seems logical.  I’m a little disappointed in the reveal of Missy’s identity, only because it’s been widely speculated since her first appearance so it wasn’t much of a surprise.  Still, she seems fairly well-characterized, and I’m looking forward to where the finale takes her.
 
And as for the Doctor and Clara… The Doctor is pretty good here.  He’s brusque with Clara but sympathetically so – does that make sense?  Probably not.  Though I won’t go into details, Clara goes significantly off the rails here, and the Doctor is fairly understanding, bringing her back from the brink and supporting her without coddling her.  Oh, and he doesn’t grasp the appeal of swimming pools with “X-ray water” that only lets you see organic material (in other words, people, but not their swimsuits) – I love me some asexual Doctorness.  On the other hand, he’s more than a little slow on the uptake when it comes to the central mysteries, and there’s only so much I can chalk up to being thrown off-kilter by Missy.  And Clara is just all over the place.  Although she’s dealing with some seriously heavy stuff in this episode, I still can’t reconcile some of her statements and actions.  Even at the start, before the drama starts going down, she feels off and is behaving in ways that really don’t make sense.  Maybe last week’s at-least-partially-misleading preview is coloring my opinion, but she doesn’t seem natural.  I can’t make heads or tails of her here, and I don’t know where the show is going with it.
 
Lastly, I won’t get into specifics, but Moffat seems to have entirely forgotten that he established that the Doctor can open the TARDIS by snapping his fingers, and it seriously undermines a part of the episode that’s meant to be suspenseful.

Saturday, 1 November 2014

Relationship Spotlight: Capt. Frederick Wentworth & Anne Elliot (Persuasion)

 
Anne and Wentworth are unusual for a Jane Austen couple in that they’re two people who have a romantic history beforethe start of the story.  It’s actually the only time we see such a dynamic in one of her books’ main pairings.  A girl-meets-boy scenario is far more frequent, and we also get a couple of gradual couples who’ve known one another for a good chunk of their lives before developing romantic feelings for each other.  But exes?  That’s something different for Austen.  It serves them well, though.  Anne and Wentworth aren’t my favorite Austen pairing (that would be Catherine and Mr. Tilney from Northanger Abbey followed pretty closely by Emma and Mr. Knightley from Emma,) but they’re perhaps the most interesting to me.  Theirs is a sadder, more wistful story; it’s tinged with a regret that many scholars link to Austen herself, especially since this book was written toward the end of her life.
 
But I digress.  Anne and Wentworth’s story together begins when they’re both young, deeply in love, and mostly heedless to their different statuses – Anne is the daughter of a wealthy baronet, while Wentworth’s position in society is decidedly lower.  Unfortunately for both, they’re not yet grown in the ways of the world.  Lady Russell, Anna’s older and shrewder friend, convinces her to go against her heart and break the “imprudent” engagement she’s formed with Wentworth.  Chastened and despondent, Wentworth retreats to nurse his wounds.  Fast forward nearly a decade.  The more advantageous matches Anne’s family and Lady Russell anticipated for her haven’t panned out, and while Wentworth has risen in means and social standing through his military service, Anne’s father has spent the Elliots out of house and home.  It’s under wildly different, humbled circumstances that Anne meets Wentworth again, and he loudly telegraphs his satisfaction with young women who, chiefly, aren’t Anne.
 
It’s such a messy, painful situation.  Anne is now 27 and regarded as a faded beauty (due equally to her age, her continued maidhood, and her unhappiness born of lost love,) and Wentworth is celebrated, successful, and sought after.  She can hardly bear for him to see her so diminished – I don’t really mean her reduced fortunes, but her overall feeling of being past the point of anyone’s desirability – and he seems to parade his flirtations in front of her.  It’s a reflection of how hurt he continues to feel about what happened between them and, unbeknownst perhaps to both of them, it’s a sign of how much she still weighs on his mind.
 
With this inauspicious foundation, their story becomes a matter of knowing and understanding one another anew, slowly peeling back their own presumptions, and lowering their defenses.  It’s about proving to each other how much they’ve grown for the better and how much the other’s pull on their heart remains unchanged.  It’s a story of second chances, not just of regaining a love thought lost, but of reopening entire chapters of life thought closed.  Because of this, Anne and Wentworth have some of the most searing, gripping scenes of any Austen couple.  The letter-writing scene, as it’s known among Austenites, was, for me, actual edge-of-my-seat reading.  There’s the letter itself, obviously – a positively gorgeous moment in literature – but I also adore Anne’s discussion with Capt. Harville that happens in the same chapter, her defense against the alleged fickleness of women.  “All the privilege I claim for my own sex (it is not a very enviable one:  you need not covet it),” she tells him, “is that of loving longest, when existence or when hope is gone!”  If you’ve ever wondered what a human heart looks like, read Anne’s words in that chapter, followed by Wentworth’s.

Friday, 31 October 2014

Poem: For the Lost Poems of Gerard Manley Hopkins (2012)


A poem about poetry - doesn't that sound fun?  Gerard Manley Hopkins's poems are like none I've ever read before.  They're extraordinary, and far too many of them are gone. 

*          *          *
 
For the Lost Poems of Gerard Manley Hopkins
 
 
 
Gerard Manley Hopkins,
Feeling the spur of the Catholic call,
Gave poetry up for lent.
 
He thought this would purge him
Of sinful pride,
Not seeing that God’s glory
Soaked through every line,
And in 1868,
He set fire to his early work.
 
Paper and ink
Made fair fodder for the flames,
But more than paper and ink
Went up.
 
In that bonfire,
Over seven years’ worth
Of his soul,
Startlingly reshaped into meter and rhyme,
Scattered into ashes.
 
It would be another seven years
Before he would set his soul to paper again
And weave it into silken stanzas
Of kingfishers and kestrels,
Shipwrecks, and endless hours
Waiting for daybreak.
 
But in 1868,
Far too many phrases
Charred black and crumbled,
Swallowed by an incendiary appetite
Greedy for assonance and sprung rhythm.
 
Of those early pieces,
Only sainted fragments remain,
Safely harbored in the margins
Of neglected notebooks
Or preserved in the folds of letters
To friends who understood what they held.
 
These rescued words
Are just bits of shining scraps –
Half-poems with no end or beginning,
As if their pages were caught by the wind
And carried from the blaze
Only after their edges started to singe;
Or lonely single lines
That float like smoke-wisps
Out of context,
Their rhymes long smoldered away.