What I Watched

Talking Funny

Talking Funny had a simple premise. Take four highly successful comics, Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, Louis C.K., and Ricky Gervais, and have them talk amongst themselves about their work. I found it fascinating. They talked about things like: How long should you perform material before you need to discard it? What makes a joke funny? How do you judge what material is worthy of inclusion and what isn't? Do you swear onstage? Why?

It was evident that they all loved their work, that they thought about jokes all the time. Seinfeld seemed like the historian of the bunch. He could remember specific bits from specific years. He could quote other people's material (and while quoting, put his own particular spin on it.)

In the program, Gervais seemed to be a bit of an outsider. It turned out that the other three had worked together before. It turned out that he was late to stand-up. He had created and starred in The Office before he did this type of work. It seemed he was in some ways, despite all of his wealth and success, still paying some dues. It was a really interesting show.

 

The Lovely Bones

I resisted watching this movie for a long time. I thought it would be too upsetting.  I had read lukewarm reviews. But one day, I noticed it on On Demand, and I decided to give it a try. I found it be a memorable, ambitious film that was not always successful, but definitely worth viewing.

This movie exemplified the difficulties of adapting some books to screen. The Lovely Bones was a great read, a sad, lovely poem of a book about a teenager who is murdered by her next door neighbor. The book begins after she has died. She is in limbo, telling her story, watching over her people, a modern day Emily from Our Town. In this case, she not only feels that she left too soon, but she wants them to know who killed her.

It makes sense that Peter Jackson would direct this film. After all, he undertook the challenge of the Lord of the Rings movies. How hard could it be to create the scenes from the afterlife? How difficult would it be to balance the brutality of this neighbor and his actions with the love and innate sweetnesss expressed by this dead girl?

The problem of this film is that it does sometimes play like a standard horror film. It's mostly a moment by moment instance, when the tone is lost for a minute, and you feel that you're back in one of those standard fright flicks where logic is thrown out the window and there are actions that suspend disbelief. For example, the method of investigation of the murder seemed unbelievably sloppy. It was definitely a cinematic experience where you had to tell your analytical brain that it was no use. This was not a film to satisfy it. The other problem is that sometimes the sweetness, the romance feels cloying, that sometimes it feels more cookie-cutter Hallmark than a unique vision of life events and beyond.

But there is plenty good about this movie. Saorise Ronan as Susie, the murdered girl, delivers a performance full of pathos. She genuinely comes across as a speclal individual who would be missed. I also really enjoyed Susan Sarandon's performance as the worldly grandmother with plenty of sophisticated foibles.

When this movie came out, I heard interviews with Stanley Tucci who said that he didn't want to take this role, that he did so at his wife's urging. He then talked about his wife's death to cancer, and how at the end, they had found alternative treatments that he felt would have been successful had they known them sooner. It gave the film special meaning to me, to think that he was playing the man who brought about this death, when at the time he was most likely somewhere in the process of grieving a death he had fought but ultimately could not prevent. He seemed willing to immerse himself into this role. He seemed tranformed as this neighbor whose predatorial spirit is in control.

I don't know if I will ever want to see this movie again, but I did find it very interesting. Sometmes it's fun to see something flawed, to try to figure out what would have made it work. To me, for the performances, I'm glad that I saw the film.

Jane Eyre

This movie knocked my socks off. It made me want to shout "Jane Eyre!!!" from the rooftops. It made me want to wear a Jane Eyre T-shirt. It made me want to go to the nearest shelter and adopt a male and a female cat and name them Mr. Rochester and Jane. I loved this movie that much.

I loved it even though I know the story well. Growing up, I read this book on numerous occasions and have seen several screen adaptations of the story since. Now seeing this version, I want to read the book again. There was a party scene with a gypsy that I vaguely remember that wasn't included here, which surprised me. i want to see the other screen versions. I'm curious to see if the other versions of Jane were as competent, as smart, as determined to be her own person as this Jane Eyre.

Mia Wasikowska has become one of my favorite young actresses. She doesn't seem to have any self-consciousness or any vanity about her. She seems fully capable of channeling emotions. Her performances ring true. She has become someone whose career I would like to follow.

Michael Fassbender as Rochester also seemed to hit the right notes as the seeming enigma known as Mr. Rochester. Judi Dench provided her usually stellar performance as the housekeeper at Thornfield. Everyone in the film seemed perfectly cast.

I also thought Moira Buffina did a great job in her adaptation of the book for this film. It's a story that could easily become overly melodramatic, and she did a fine job of making  the points effectively and moving on. Credit is also due here to the director, Cary Fukunaga, for ensuring that the film was highly emotional, but nothing seemed over the top.

It's a film that should be seen on a big screen. It's beautifully shot, wonderfully lit. Moments are composed with care. The film just seemed to fly by, and I didn't want it to end. I hope the awards show remember this film next year. It deserves some honors.

 

"The Killing"

This reminded me more of a movie than a miniseries. It is beautifully shot.  Everyone in this project seems at the top of their game.

Here is the basic story: A female homicide detective has one more day on the job before she pulls up stakes and moves with her son to live in Sonoma, California. In three weeks, she plans to get married. On this final day at work, she meets her replacement, Stephen Holder, and together the two of them discover a murder, a local teenage girl found in the trunk of a car that can be traced to a political candidate. In the thirteen episodes that make up this show, the mystery will be solved as to who killed this girl.

I really like the women in this show. Mireille Enos who plays the homicide detective, Sarah Linden, genuinely seems like the type of person that an employer would do anything to keep. She comes across as smart, quiet, dedicated, thorough. She has a calm presence, but it is very believable to me that once she becomes engaged in something, that it's hard for her to let go. She is a strong and unique force, and I'm very happy that she anchors this show.

I have always been a fan of Michelle Forbes since I first saw her in "Homicide:Life on the Streets." She has always seemed to me to be the type of actress who has rebelled against the system, who has resisted being placed in any sort of a mold, who has always been fiery and cranky and would prefer to have some character warts. She has an adversion to blandness, and I am always glad to see that she's part of this project.

I also really liked Kacey Rohl as the best friend of the girl who was killed. She seemed very natural and seems to understand that less is more. She seemed to do that with true depth. I hope to see her in more things in the future.

The funny thing about this show, two episodes in, is that I feel like I really don't know much at all yet about the girl who died. I am interested in and care a lot about the people who were somehow connected to her, but she is still an enigma to me. It will be interesting to see if she become a full-blown character as things progress, or whether there will always be a strange hole in the center of things.

By the end of the first two episodes, I had grown to really like Joel Kinnaman who plays Stephen Holder, the detective who has come to replace Sarah Linden at work. At first, he comes across as someone not suited for this job. It made sense that Sarah would stick around and watch to see if he would adjust, which he slowly does with considerable elan. He has become fascinating to watch, and I'm really looking forward to see what he does in future episodes. It is really an excellent show.

Chopped All Stars, Grand Finale

The problem with the Chopped All Star Grand Finale, in my opinion, was that Episodes 2, 3, and 4 were so great, it would be hard to be more grand. This sentiment may just come from disappointment. I expected Anne Burrell to win. She seemed flat out invincible to me. We learned this episode that she had burned her cornea in Round 1 in her earlier competition and after she won, she had to go to the emergency room. Here she was defeated by her use of tomato paste. It's interesting and funny and unique, but it's not High Drama, and that's well and good, but not what my palate thinks will happen in a Grand Finale.

There was more open sniping in this episode. In Round 2, in the judging segment, both the judges and the contestants were harsh with each other, which was different from the previous Chopped All Stars competitions. There had always been some bragging and some self-elevation in the contestants' private moments with the camera, but they seemed to keep it in check publicly with each other. This time, Aaron  Sanchez presented his dish to the judges with a statement that basically diminished the efforts of his two rivals. This was immediately commented upon by Ted Allen, the host, and the other contestants. The ill will felt like a misused ingredient sprinkled upon a prize-winning dish. It left an unfortunate taste in my mouth.

 I have mixed feelings about the personal stories. They humanize the contestant, and they make their intense desire to win clear. But on one level, they also seem like a lobbying effort, a "You cannot eliminate me, because I have this compelling personal story." The stories were compelling, and when Nate Appleman won and his son came out, I was moved. But part of me also felt a bit yanked around, like a note in a meal that had been played just a little too much.

I have to admit that I was happy when Ted Allen announed that this was the first ever Chopped All Stars Grand Finale, which seemed to indicate that this had established a tradition that would continue. In the next competition, as I had written previously, I would like to see the judges that evaluated these proceedings compete. I would like to see  Anne Burrell and Robert Irvine return. I would like to see the Iron Chefs compete in one round. Would they feel it was beneath them? Would it tarnish their brand? It sure would be fun to see.

Justified

I was late to the party on this one. The cowboy hat fooled me. I figured it was a western. Even when I realized I was wrong, that it was in fact Elmore Leonard, I still didn't get around to it until they pulled the plug on "Terriers," and we were looking for something new.

"Let's just give this a try," I said, and then we were hooked.

For me, a large part of the appeal of the show is Timothy Olyphant. The funny thing is, I had previously thought that Olyphant was a major part of my problem with "Deadwood." (The other part being that I could never fully get on board with the language of the show. I didn't really care if they cussed or not, but the way they talked just seemed convoluted to me, and my ears rebelled against it.) But at that time, I did not think that Olyphant was leading man material. I thought he was stiff, a Ken doll who lacked any kind of charisma. It's hard to believe now, as I basically think that Olyphant could now stride on screen and read a phone book, and I would be attentive. He's great looking, and he seems engaged. His mind seems always to be working, which is important for this role, because his character is often saying one thing and thinking another.  He has become a geniune star to me, and I would now pretty much want to watch all of his work. Let me say that this show is full of fine performances,  but for me, I watch this show for Olyphant.

The writing is great in the show. I had heard that the writers had a saying, "What would Elmore do?" and it does seem that they stay true to the writer. I also heard that Elmore Leonard told Timothy Olyphant that he could lose the hat, that, say, perhaps one day a wind came up and blew the hat away, and that would be the end of it. I will go on record to say I would miss the hat. It was originally a deterrent for me watching the show, but I have grown very fond of that hat, and I would miss it if it was gone.