Character Highlight: Madame Vastra (Doctor Who)

Looking at a quasi-companion today.  The lethal Silurian head of the Paternoster gang, Vastra (along with Jenny and Strax) has never been a resident of the TARDIS, but she’s definitely a part of the Doctor’s life and has been known to accompany him through time and/or space when he needs someone with her skillset.

It’s true that Vastra falls onto the action-figure-ish side of the Steven Moffat Recurring Character line.  She’s a brilliant detective (the inspiration for Sherlock Holmes if Dr. Simeon is to be believed) who caught Jack the Ripper.  Her keen intellect is almost as sharp as her weapon of choice, a sword, she has a knack for the Big Damn Hero entrance, and she’s apparently eaten the odd murderer here and there (does that make her kind of like a Silurian cross between Dexter and Hannibal?  She eats people, but only evil people.)  All the while, she’s a member of an ancient, highly developed reptilian species who’s tooling around Victorian London with her maid/wife.

Sometimes all the flash works for me, sometimes it doesn’t.  I tend to like Vastra best when we really see her as a product of her environment and/or her past.  It’s neat, for example, when she shares knowledge based on her prehistoric experiences before her people went underground and into stasis, and I like it when she feels genuinely Victorian.  I dunno; I just enjoy the idea that, no matter what her original story was, she’s now made a new life and home for herself in London and has become part of that society.  So, I get a kick out of her doing stuff like calling newspaper ads a “distressing modern trend.”  Granted, she’s time-traveled with the Doctor on at least one occasion, and her experience with people from other times/places – the Doctor, Amy and Rory, River, Clara – mean that she has knowledge of technology and other things from significantly further in the future, not to mention that the Silurians had advanced tech millions of years ago.  In that sense, I get why she can function pretty interchangeably with someone like the Doctor or River in a crazy sci-fi scenario, and it’s not that I want Vastra to seem behind the times, but I like the little touches that remind us how she’s influenced by her environment.

I won’t go too much into her relationship with Jenny, since I’ve already talked about it.  Suffice it to say, she can be an incredibly loving wife, but also a very dismissive, commanding one (it’s worth noting that most of the moments that have given me pause about their relationship have been based on things Vastra has said or done.)  I always love her best when she’s tender with Jenny and treats her like an equal.

I really like the idea of Vastra as an accomplished detective, and we know Moffat knows his way around a deductive genius, but with this trait, it feels like we get a lot more “tell” than “show.”  I mean, yes, we’re informed that Vastra is the inspiration for Sherlock Holmes, and in the Paternoster episodes, there are references to different cases Vastra is working on – the most notable, I suppose, would be in “The Crimson Horror,” since her case there forms the basis for the adventure.  However, we don’t see her do much in the way of actual deductive reasoning.  With Vastra, we tend to get more generalized investigating, conjectures based on her knowledge of other worlds or times, and sexy Victorian reptile lady butt-kicking.  I have yet to hear Vastra make a really gorgeous, stunning deduction like we’ve been known to get on Sherlock, and I’d like to. 

A Few More Thoughts on the Oscars Race Debate

I’ve been following the #OscarsSoWhite stuff quite a bit, and in the midst of what I’ve read, there’s naturally been a wide range of expressed views.  Some call for change, some urge moderation, and some make me shake my head in disbelief (for Pete’s sake, Charlotte Rampling!)  One popular topic has been absolving the Academy of any racial bias by explaining precisely why certain hoped-for nominations didn’t happen.  If you look online, it doesn’t take long before you can find someone willing to tell you exactly why this year’s nominations are so homogenized and why the reasons are perfectly innocent.  When I look at them, however, I still see imbalance.  Some of the major arguments, along with my rebuttals, are as follows. 

Michael B. Jordan (and Ryan Coogler) didn’t get nominated for Creed because the Academy is kind of snobbish and isn’t about to recognize a Rocky movie – First, rightly or wrongly, the original Rocky won both best picture and best director in 1977.  Second, Sylvester Stallone’s nomination shows the Academy wasn’t averse to recognizing the film.

Will Smith didn’t get nominated for Concussion because his film got shaky reviews and didn’t perform well at the box office: 63% at Rotten Tomatoes and $34 million domestic – Lukewarm reviews didn’t hold back Jennifer Lawrence for Joy (60%,) and neither did a poor box office showing keep Michael Fassbender and Kate Winslet from being nominated for Steve Jobs ($17 million.)  The Danish Girl hasn’t had the critical orbox-office reception it had anticipated, but both Eddie Redmayne and Alicia Vikander got nominated.

Come on, like the Academy was ever gonna nominate Straight Outta Compton; it’s about gangsta rap! – Again, the film did get one nomination (best original screenplay, for its white writers,) so it’s not like the Academy didn’t know about it or didn’t recognize it as a great film.  Also, from Coal Miner’s Daughter to Walk the Line to Amadeus, musical biopics are like crack to Academy voters.  Is it fair to ignore an incredibly popular, well-reviewed example of the genre because of the style of music it uses?

Idris Elba didn’t get nominated for Beasts of No Nation because it was released on Netflix and the Academy doesn’t like new media - Okay, this one is probably true (at least, it had better be, since there’s no other earthly reason not to recognize Elba’s work here.)  It’s a shame because 1) Netflix has proven time and again that it has serious game when it comes to original programming, and 2) it makes the Academy look pretty fuddy-duddy compared to the Emmys, which have been giving online shows love for years.  Of course, the TV industry also seems to do better at including people of color, so maybe the movie business is just backward as a whole?

Are you saying the people who got nominated didn’t deserve it?  Is Matt Damon just chopped liver?  Who would you have kicked out to give (insert non-nominated PoC’s name here) a slot? – Look, I get it.  The Oscars are an insanely competitive world, and only five people in any one category can snag a nomination.  Tom Hanks didn’t get nominated for Bridge of Spies, after all, and neither did Charlize Theron for Mad Max:  Fury Road.  In any given year, there will be people giving Oscar-caliber performances who just don’t make the cut, and that’s because, once you hit a certain echelon of acting, the delineations of quality are so minute that it largely comes down to the luck of the draw.  Sure, there are always going to be outliers on either side – frontrunners and longshots – but for the most part, it’s a matter of the gods being with you.  But that’s the thing:  if it’s a game of chance, the results should be random in the particulars but reasonably statistical in generalities.  In other words, however large that pool of deserving performances may be – 30?  50?  100? – anyone within that pool should have at least close to an even chance of being nominated in one of the four acting categories.  So, in theory, if that group is 15% people of color, then PoC should make up roughly 15% of the nominations.  Right?  (I know, by the way, that 15% is a depressingly-low number, but I’m keeping it intentionally low in reply to maybe-Black-actors-just-didn’t-have-any-award-worthy-performances-this-year “argument.”)  We know there are 20 nominated actors every year.  A single nomination slot is only 5%.  5%!  So, that means either PoC gave less than 5% of this year’s Oscar-caliber performances, or it doesn’t add up that 20 white actors “just so happened” to be the ones to draw the winning cards for the second year in a row.  Which seems more likely to you?

(Besides, none of this explains why David Oyelowo didn’t get nominated for Selma last year!)

News Satire Roundup: February 1st-February 4th

Monday, February 1 – I liked the story on Zika, particularly the various U.S./Latin America comparisons; the Zika-soccer analogy was spot on.  Trevor’s bout of “mosquito racism” was also fantastic.  Airing a Black History Month clip “from 1965” was an amusing idea, but I think it could have been executed better.  My favorite bits were “Roy Wood, Sr.” and Trevor’s comment that, in Africa, every month is Black History Month.  I’m not the biggest fan of Ronny’s but I liked his report on the Iowa caucus, or more precisely, questioning why it’s even remotely relevant.  (Side note – the “Natural Corn Shillers” header was too perfect.)  Loved guest Reshma Saujani, CEO of Girls Who Code.  I especially appreciated the observation that people code for things they think the world needs, and a largely-homogenized group of white men won’t have the same perception on the world’s needs as a group that includes women and people of color. 

Tuesday, February 2 – Trevor’s “first-timer to American elections” shtick served the Iowa caucus story well.  All the commentary about the winners vs. the “real winners” was excellent (I really need to find an excuse to use, “It’s like the alphabet:  numbers don’t mean shit, people,” in real life,) especially when Jordan came along to help make things as clear as mud.  I think the Black History Month stuff continues to be better in idea than execution, but in talking about the Emancipation Proclamation, I love that the show brought up the whole border states issue – I always think of that when people talk about Lincoln freeing the slaves.  The interview was with Peter Bergen of CNN, talking about homegrown terrorism.  Really interesting to compare the statistics to the demagoguery happening in the Republican race right now; we’re so good at fearing the threats we’re taught to fear.

Wednesday, February 3 – I laughed so hard at Trevor’s bewildered reaction to Groundhog Day, especially the remark about how Africans with that tradition would be perceived.  The follow-up piece on the Iowa caucus was great; highlights included Ted Cruz being a slime ball, Carson flying halfway across the country for “fresh clothes,” and Trump potentially being the first “millennial” president.  I liked Roy’s field piece on racism in the porn industry (though I felt for him when he realized he was doing yet another racism story.)  It’s not history, but it felt more thorough and well-made than the previous Black History Month showings.  The interview with comedian Hannibal Buress was nothing special.  I did like him talking with Trevor about an unsuccessful show he did in Southern Africa, especially when Trevor revealed that many in the audience hadn’t realized Buress was a comedian.

Thursday, February 4 – The blurb about the thinning of the Republican race was pretty brief; the Fast and the Furious reference was fun, and Santorum twisting in the wind trying to explain why he supports Rubio was delightful.  The Peyton Manning-Cam Newton story was really great.  Trevor did a fantastic job of exploring the many factors at play: how easy it is to create a certain media narrative, the different ways people celebrate across cultures, and the dubiousness of criticizing Newton’s end-zone dances for not being “classy” enough for football.  I loved the separate messages for white and Black viewers.  The next piece, Trevor and Ronny discussing a minor clash between Black History Month and Chinese NewYear, while lighter weight, was still amusing.  I’m not familiar with YouTube star Lilly Singh, but I enjoyed her interview.  She was really fun and personable, and it was neat to hear about what YouTube has meant to her.

Sicario (2015, R)

Sicario isn’t a big Oscar contender.  It’s only up for one of my priority categories – Roger Deakins for best cimematography – but to me, it’s reminiscent of gritty, violent current-event pictures of recent years, like The Hurt Locker or Zero Dark Thirty.  While focusing on fighting a drug cartel instead of insurgents or terrorists, it has much of the same sensibility as those films.  For whatever reason, I had a harder time connecting with The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty, so it’s probably no surprise that this film left me a bit cold.

Kate, a dedicated FBI agent, is tired of fighting a losing game.  After a particularly harrowing we-know-exactly-who’s-behind-it-but-we-can’t-pin-it-on-him experience, she’s ready to go all in when she’s invited to volunteer for a very high-level, very hush-hush squad that promises actual results.  She’s eager to make a real difference, but the deeper she gets into the increasingly-sketchy operation, the more she struggles to understand what she’s really gotten herself into.

We’ll start with what works.  The direction is tight and gripping, showing how the threat of violence can somehow simmer in the air and yet, when it finally erupts, still feel like it’s coming out of nowhere.  (Deakins’s work has plenty to do with that – something of an always-a-bridesmaid cinematographer, he’s been nominated for a whopping 16 Oscars and never won.)  I like the basic framework of Kate and a number of the other characters, especially the mysterious and knowledgeable Alejandro and Kate’s FBI partner Reggie.  As far as the latter goes, the close, supportive friendship between Kate and Reggie is one of my favorite parts of the film.  He’s definitely there for the sole purpose of serving her story, which is kind of uncool, but I still like the way they talk things through, look for trouble together, and unwind after a hard day.

The screenplay is a little rougher for me.  It’s all right, but it feels a bit been-there, done-that.  My attention started to wander in the last third of the film, and while many of the characters are set up well, some later fall prey to out-of-character Idiot Ball plotting to get the story moving where it needs to go.  Kate gets the worst of this, which is a shame, because it keeps me from loving her as much as I want to.

That said, she’s still pretty engaging, thanks in huge part to Emily Blunt’s smart performance that walks the right line between toughness and vulnerability.  I may shake my head at some of the things Kate does, but Blunt always sells them with everything she’s got.  Plus, her platonic chemistry with Reggie (played by Daniel Kaluuya, a.k.a. Posh Kenneth from Skins) is off the hook.  Benicio del Toro is great as the enigmatic Alejandro.  Although the role earned him some Oscar buzz a while back, I haven’t heard him mentioned much since the nominations came out and #OscarsSoWhite started up again.  Not sure why.  Is it because he was more of a longshot compared to people like Idris Elba or Michael B. Jordan?  Or maybe the fact that some have been translating “no PoC actors up for Oscars” to mean “no Black actors up for Oscars?”  It’s weird that his performance isn’t really a part of the conversation.  In other news, the film also features a reliably-good Josh Brolin and a brief appearance by Victor Garber.

Warnings

Strong violence, disturbing images, language, drinking, smoking, and sexual content.

Chi-Raq (2015, R)

I’m a little embarrassed to admit that this is my first Spike Lee movie I’ve.  I’d been vaguely aware of it, but it was back-to-back Daily Show interviews with Spike Lee and Nick Cannon that made me go, “Whoa, I need to see this!”  Naturally, it never came to my local theater, and the city an hour+ drive from my house only had it before about two weeks, so I missed it on the big screen.  Netflix just got it on DVD, though, and I snatched it up the first chance I got.

A modern retelling of an Aristophanes play, Chi-Raqtakes place in Chicago, where gang-related shootings have ended more American lives than both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  The fighting here is focused on two Southside gangs, the Spartans and the Trojans.  Desperate to put a stop to the violence, Lysistrata, the girlfriend of the Spartan leader Chi-Raq, decides to go on a “sex strike” from her man until he agrees to lay down arms, and she enlists women from both the Spartan and Trojan sides, as well as women all over Chicago and beyond, to join the cause.

This being my first Spike Lee movie, I don’t know how it compares to his other work, so we’ll stick to the story at hand.  I thought this film was a pretty singular experience.  It looks amazing, with its very purposeful color scheme, dramatically-framed shots, and semi-musical flair with some movements choreographed or synced to the beat of the soundtrack.  Most of the characters somehow seem archetypal while feeling really specific.  They carry the story with stylish but earnest vibrancy.  The satire is fun, while the commentary sometimes meanders between insightful and overly pointed; at times, it feels a bit too “tell, not show.”  I can see how the film might be labeled “preachy,” but at the same time, there’s a real rawness to it.  This is a sleek, precisely-penned movie, and yet it’s also an urgent voice shouting and sick of not being heard.

A lot of flavor is drawn from the source material.  There are the cheeky reference, like the eye-patch-wearing Trojan leader Cyclops and the jokes about a young Chicagoan named Oedipus, and we have a one-man Greek chorus in the form of dapper Dolmedes.  More notably, however, much of the dialogue is written in verse.  First of all, this is really striking and makes the film stand out from most standard fare.  Overall, I think the device has its pros and cons.  It allows for some really dazzling lines with stunningly-phrased truth bombs and extremely clever rhyming.  That said, a huge chunk of the delivery falls into something of a sing-song cadence that keeps the dialogue from really feeling spoken.  There are times when the rhythm flows more tightly, usually by someone emphasizing the beat just a bit more or a bit less than the general tempo, and then it’s like magic.  Throughout too much of the film, though, it’s at a not-quite-right place somewhere in between, which makes it come across as a little too consciously written.

As Lysistrata and Chi-Raq, both Teyonah Parris and Nick Cannon are great.  I especially love Lysistrata, a potent cross between brilliant, fierce, passionate, and smooth.  Further props go to Angela Bassett as a neighborhood woman and Samuel L. Jackson as Dolmedes.  Also featured are John Cusack, Jennifer Hudson, Harry Lennix (Boyd from Dollhouse,) and Dave Chappelle.

Warnings

Sexual content (including sex scenes and explicit language,) gang violence, swearing, drinking/drug use, and thematic elements.

Creed (2015, PG-13)

I had a heck of a time trying to see this.  I blinked (and missed) its release at my local theater, and since then, it’s vanished from the closest theater every time I’ve contemplated driving out to see it.  I finally managed to catch it, 62 miles away – yeesh.  But you know what?  So worth it.  (Be advised that this is my first Rocky-franchise film ever, so my background is thin.)

Adonis “Donnie” Creed has spent his life in the shadow of a man he never met.  The illegitimate son of boxing legend Apollo Creed (who died in the ring before he was born,) Donnie is determined by follow in his father’s footsteps while at the same time not trading in on his father’s legacy – he boxes under his late mother’s last name.  Despite the protests of his adopted mother – Creed’s widow Mary Anne – who worries for his safety, his efforts take him to Philly, where he attempts to enlist an aging Rocky Balboa as his coach.

Okay – as I’ve said, I’m not a big sports movie person in general, and I’ve seen only a very few boxing movies.  (I feel obliged to point out that one of those is Buster Keaton’s Battling Butler.)  But I loved this movie.  I thought it was absolutely great.  I’ve heard some people say it has pretty strong parallels to the original Rocky– shades of the A New Hope/The Force Awakens comparisons? – and I couldn’t tell you about that, but it’s just incredibly well-made.  The story is compelling, the direction is tight, the characters are meaty and rootable, and the acting is rock-solid.  Every element comes together wonderfully. 

There are beautiful character and story touches throughout, little moments that flesh out these people and the world they inhabit (I particularly like that Donnie’s love interest has stuff going on in her life besides being Donnie’s love interest.)  In tone, the film can be dramatic, exciting, uplifting, humorous, touching, and intense, skipping effortlessly between these variations as the script demands.  The dialogue sounds natural and lived-in, even in the “rah-rah, inspiring sports movie” moments.  Also?  The relationships are excellent.  The mentor-mentee chemistry between Donnie and Rocky is aces, the brief scenes we get between Donnie and Mary Anne are lovely, and I really like the budding relationship between Donnie and aspiring musician Bianca.

Michael B. Jordan is splendid as Donnie.  As Hamilton would say, he’s “young, scrappy, and hungry,” but he’s also angry, in up to his neck if not over his head, and bubbling with unresolved issues.  I’d at first thought Sylvester Stallone’s Oscar nomination was sort of a comprehensive nod to his history of playing Rocky, but he is in truth very good here and rises to the occasion of some fantastic material.  I love Tessa Thompson (who I remember best as Jackie on Veronica Mars) as Bianca, and as Mary Anne, Phylicia Rashad does great work with limited screentime.

On the #OscarsSoWhite front, I really, really wish writer-director Ryan Coogler had been recognized in some way – a screenplay nod if the voters were feeling especially stingy with the directing slots.  I’d have loved to see some love for Michael B. Jordan as well, although the lead actor category is so packed with Oscar-y roles that I’m not sure who he might’ve edged out.

Warnings

Boxing violence, some swearing, and brief sexual content.

The Frozen North (1922)

The first few times I watched this Buster Keaton short, it didn’t do anything for me.  Not a thing.  There seemed to be very little story, I didn’t take much notice of the gags, and most of all, I noticed that Buster was acting uncharacteristically “bad” and I didn’t really care for it.  What unlocked The Frozen North for me was learning that it’s actually a parody of the melodramatic westerns of silent star William S. Hart; that made all the difference.  I’m not even sure why exactly, since I’ve still never seen any of Hart’s films, but now that I know the intention behind it, I can see this short for how hilarious it really is.  (A few spoilers.)

Buster is a bad man, a lawless rogue living in an unforgiving Alaska landscape.  He’s all about what he wants, whether that’s another man’s money or another man’s wife, and he’s not particularly choosy about how he gets it.  He’s rough, commanding, and hard-(cola)-drinking, and he’s ready for life to bend to his will.

From my understanding, William S. Hart made a career out of playing rough ‘n’ tumble cowboy types with dubious morals but a sensitive side (Buster parodies his famous penchant for glycerin-tear crying scenes) – an early example of the “bad boy” antihero, maybe?  Buster’s version of the character is definitely bad, even awful.  He tries to rob a bunch of gamblers at gunpoint (sort of,) he shoots two people in cold blood, and when he takes a shine to someone else’s wife, his version of wooing her looks a lot closer to how Big Joe Roberts treats the girl when he plays one of Buster’s villains.  This, I think, is the first part of the parody, unromanticizing the bad-boy swagger and making it clear that this guy is just a straight-up jerk.

Then, you get the double whammy of Buster being both kind of hapless at ne’er-do-welling and ridiculously cavalier about the consequences of his actions.  Those people he tries to rob realize he’s no threat when they see he’s using a picture from a wanted poster to hold them up, and immediately after he shoots his apparently-cheating wife and her lover in a fit of passion, he discovers he’s walked into the wrong house and it wasn’t his wife at all.  The latter is a perfect example of what’s going on here; not only has he completely bungled things, but he doesn’t care in the slightest that he’s just killed two people by mistake.  That callously dismissive air allows for some really black comedy that you don’t usually see in Buster’s work, but it’s very funny in a dark way.  I also love when Buster, trying to keep a visiting police officer from seeing that his wife is unconscious (not by Buster’s hand, I should point out,) puts on some music and pretends to dance with her, then unceremoniously drops her back on the floor as soon as the officer leaves.

Just setting a “western” in Alaska provides good opportunities for fun gags, and Buster makes the most of his locale.  There’s a fetchingly-decorated igloo, a fantastic dueling ice-fishermen scene, snowball-and-snowshoe baseball, off-the-cuff snowman disguises, fun with motorized sleds, and, my personal favorite, acoustic guitar snowshoes.  No one did it quite like Buster.

Warnings

Some over-the-top violence (including melodramatic killing,) rough treatment of women, and general unscrupulousness.