GET ON UP

Saw GET ON UP yesterday. Chad Boseman was pitch-perfect as the Godfather of Soul. In fact all the actors were on point. I think Nelsan Ellis as Bobby Byrd should garner serious oscar consideration along with Boseman. My issue is with the inconsistant script. I want go into too many story details or give "spoilers." (Even though my friend Iris is in San Diego and I'm here in L.A., her hand will reach far enough to smack me!) Writing a bio-pic is a challenge especially if you want to avoid cliche. But the story still must have a through-line so the audience can follow the story of the main character either through thematic concept or an emotional arc. This film chose to fragment the story, randomly throwing moments from different time periods together. I think what they were going for was a physical representation of the complicated chaos that was James Brown's life and emotional state. There were interesting bits where he broke "the fourth" wall and spoke directly to the audience as well as individual moments (one in particular with Viola Davis as his mother coming backstage to see her son James at the Apollo) of true raw power. But it felt like the writers thought it would be cool to use a deconstructivist approach to tell Mr. Dynamite's life story without regard for coherence. Genre-wise we're all over the place from magical-realism, to satire, to tall-tale, to comedy, to concert film, to drama. You can mix genres but they have to mesh and add up to a satisfying, cathartic whole or you leave people scratching their heads in confusion and disappointment--like me and others I saw leaving the theater. I happen to have read two really good biographies about JB, the most interesting was written by trombone-sideman, Fred Wesley.( And he wasn't even in the movie. Maceo was chose to represent he and Fred. Craig Robinson who looks more like Fred placed Maceo. But how can you do a James Brown story and leave out Fred Wesley? C'mon now!!) Either one of those works could have been the basis for a compelling story. Fred's book is called HIT ME, FRED and even though it's about Wesley's life, the James Brown segments are very revealing. To be fair, Brown's life would be tough to fit into a 2 or even 3 hour movie. A premium cable series would probably be more suitable. But, focusing on one significant period of the man's life could be very compelling as a movie. Even if you wanted to be more expansive than that, the first rule is to be entertaining. Parts of this film achieve that. A second rule would be to make sense----story sense. That's the part that's very iffy. We're left with a very episodic experience with stellar acting that deserves better support from the script. Finally, I have to mention Jill Scott. She's amazing. Jill was so sexy in this movie that if the real Dee Dee was like her, you understand why James went nuts for her. Also Jill tapped into the woman's deep sadness and profound befuddlement at the man she found herself hitched to in just a few key scenes. That's acting---brilliant acting.

SERIALIZED & EPISODIC

In the past, the majority of tv drama series were episodic.  Each week the main characters were faced with a different problem and 50 or so minutes later, things were wrapped up in a neat little package.  Balance was restored in the world…until next week.  Essentially a show could tell the same story every week with enough minor variations in guest characters, setting, motive, disease etc. to give the show the appearance of greater variety.  Some shows excelled in this format and the writing was strong.  In a cop show a crime would be committed at the top of the hour and the detectives would be called in to investigate.  Various twists and turns would occur leading to the arrest of the wrong perp.  This was the red herring.  New information was received in the form of a minor thing that turned out to be a major clue and the actual villain was uncovered.  The villain attempts to the turn the tables.  When that doesn’t work, he or she makes a run for it but is caught.  Roll Credits.  In a medical show an innocent or incredibly courageous guest star is stricken with a mysterious ailment.  The super physicians diagnose the problem while fighting with the bureaucratic medical establishment.  The first cure proves to be wrong.  The guest patient might even become sicker or some other character with the ailment code blues.  Finally some minor clue in the form of a hunch by the smart doctor leads to a radical treatment that saves the patient.  Roll Credits.  This is a very broad view of the template but the basics are what carried tv drama for years.  With the progression of decades some of the “nice” characters were replaced with not-so-likeable people giving the main characters a professional and moral dilemma.  Even though he’s innocent, do I work diligently to save this scumbag because of my high moral standing or do I let him/her rot because the rest of the world will be better off?  That’s right, it’s the ‘70’s.  And sometimes a continuing character would have “issues” like being a recovering alcoholic/druggie/workaholic whose only joy is the job.  This was the ‘80’s.  Also this was the time when elements of serialization started to become popular in primetime television.  Producers knew that daytime soaps thrived on continuing storylines and audiences loved these shows.  There has always been some form of night time soap(PEYTON PLACE in the ‘60’s) but in the ‘80’s there seemed to be an explosion with “DALLAS,” “DYNASTY,” “FALCON CREST,” and a few others.  Melodramatic cliff-hangers and heightened conflicts drove these shows.  Cop and lawyer shows started incorporating longer story arcs and shows like HILL STREET BLUES and LA LAW were born with multiple lead characters who were flawed and relateable to the audiences.  Many of the shows still had some storylines to wrap up in a single episode but others played out over the course of many installments with the biggest cliff-hanger coming in the season finale.  This was done to get viewers to demand another season so the show’s life could be extended.

     A major difference between television and film used to be the rendering of the character arc.  In a film the character seeks to fulfill a goal.  This is the desire line and the character is fully aware of this element.  In good storytelling the character also has a moral need and this is a lesson the character needs to learn in order to become a better person.  The character is unaware of this at first but the audience picks up on it.  This lack of awareness of the moral need is what drives the character to do things that hurt him or herself and those in the immediate environment in some way.  The moment when the character realizes his goal and his moral need is when he has a revelation and chooses to act or not act and this determines his fate.  In a television show a character chases a goal but never fully realizes his moral need.  If he did, the show would be over because the major problem would have been solved so the story is done.  Television has gotten good at giving the character depth  to keep the action going.  Also television has given us many regular characters to enlarge the storyline.  The goal for primetime used to be to get at least 100 shows out of a concept.  That’s roughly five years---enough episodes for syndication so all participating parties can make a profit---at least the production entities.  For animation the traditional episode goal number was 65. (Of course the SIMPSONS are way beyond that.)

     By it’s very nature, soap opera is serialized.  In order to engage us, the drama must be heightened.  If it’s too heightened, we drift into melodrama that has become a convention of soaps. The aim of many serious writers is to keep the drama heightened but grounded in order to avoid the un-believability and cheesiness of melodrama. 

Mini-series starting in the ‘70’s,like RICH MAN, POOR MAN (a so called “novel for television) popularized the nighttime serial.  While it had its moments of shameless melodrama, this ground-breaking show stirred the emotions enough to garner huge ratings, inspire a sequel, and many copy-cats.  Some were good and some were the pitts. But the genie was out of the bottle.  This form peeked in the ‘80’s only to re-surface as full-fledged night time soaps which morphed into the many shows we have today.  By marrying the episodic drama to the serial, much of primetime television is able to tell longer stories and excavate more interesting character details.  I personally prefer shows that have it both ways: there’s several story threads that continue from week to week but there is also a close-end story that spans only a single episode.  But that’s just me.  Many shows that are total serials rack up massive ratings ensuring the life of this trend until…next week.

SADDLE UP!

The Western was a staple of scripted television for many years dating back to it’s inception in the 1940’s.  The trend began to wane in the mid 70’s and has been a rarity ever since.  Every so often an inventive producer comes up with a “horse opera” that captures the public taste like HBO’s DEADWOOD and recently, AMC’s excellent, HELL ON WHEELS.

     A level of comfort exists in the traditional western because the line between good and evil is clearly delineated.  The good guys are saints and the bad guys are  so nasty they could school the devil.  No middle ground.  Unlike in real life where much occurs in shades of gray. 

     Most of the popular westerns were one-hour shows but there were a few half-hours like the enjoyable THE GUNS OF WILL SONNETT (1967-69) starring Walter Brennan and Dack Rambo.  The premise had a grandfather and his grandson searching the old west for the boy’s missing gunslinger father.  During their search they made time to help people in need.  Walter Brennan was old but he was a fast draw and whenever he had to prove it he did so with the tag line, “No brag, just facts.”

     Besides the wandering loners (KUNG FU, CHEYENNE), buddies on the run (ALIAS SMITH AND JONES, THE OUTCASTS) family ranch life (THE BIG VALLEY, LANCER), stoic lawmen (GUNSMOKE, LAREDO, CIMMARON STRIP), government agents (THE WILD, WILD WEST, THE BARBARY COAST) and revisionist westerns (PARADISE, DEADWOOD), another sub-genre emerged.  This was the modern western.  The hero often, but not always, drove a car or jeep and used such new-fangled gadgets like walkie-talkies and handcuffs.  There was CADE’S COUNTY with GLENN FORD riding over bumpy sagebrush and the short-lived but interesting NAKIA with a young ROBERT FORRESTER as a Native American Deputy Sheriff.  He actually rode a horse sometimes.

MCCLOUD, starring Dennis Weaver, was one of the most successful.  Based loosely on the Clint Eastwood film, COOGAN’S BLUFF, it was a fish-out-of-water story of a New Mexico deputy marshal temporarily on loan to the New York City P.D.  Somehow this simple looking country boy, who was actually Sherlock Holmes in a Stetson, showed those big time city slickers a thing or two about rounding up sophisticated suburban varmints.  His tag-line was “Uh-huh, there ya go.”

     With the social and political upheaval that dominated the public consciousness starting in the late ‘60’s, television shows began to reflect these moral and ethical complexities.  Westerns were no longer just the land of simple black and white hat justice.  (Even the cool good guys wore black hats and kissed a different pretty girl every week.)  They started asking questions about human rights, corruption, exploitation, and the impact of human interaction on the overall environment.  Because Premium Cable hadn’t exploded yet, television was not really equipped to handle the grittiness of the “Revisionist Western” with the same depth that features were allowed.  The whole Revisionist idea turned what we thought of as the old west on its ear.  Some cowboys mercilessly slaughtered Indians who were minding their own business because they wanted their land.  They raped women, smoked dope, embezzled money, and intimidated rivals with blackmail.  And these were the  “Good Guys.”  In the film, “DOC,” about the famous Doc Holliday, we learn his partner Wyatt Earp was a coward and a back-shooter.  Doc, himself, kept throwing up every few minutes, and actually shot and killed his kid apprentice for being insolent.  To be fair, Doc warned the kid in the beginning by telling him he was not the best role model.  This was strong stuff and television was not going near that subject matter or the blood and gore and excessive nudity required to overstate the point and provide wonderful, salacious entertainment.  It was the ‘70’s and people wanted to see the flaws in their icons just like we were witnessing in the nation’s capitol a la The Watergate Affair and the Pentagon Papers.  Understandably, bloodless tv shoot-em-ups with easily resolved morality issues, fell out of favor.

     In recent years JUSTIFIED successfully resurrected the modern western.  Based on bestselling late author Elmore Leonard’s character, Raylan Givens, a Stetson wearing, straight shooting, quirky deputy U.S. Marshal.  Givens first appeared in the novels, “Pronto” and “Riding The Rap” and later in the short story, “Fire In The Hole.”  His last appearance on the page was in “Raylan” which was written after JUSTIFIED premiered on tv. The setting for this show is a rural Kentucky and surrounding areas.  Although this is clearly the 21^st century, the people are all versions of southern small time folk with their easy, syrupy drawl, and  “aw shucks” casual charm.  Of course underneath all somewhat idyllic surface is the scheming, plotting, edgy back-biting found in the best Tennesse Williams play or Carson McCullers gothic novel.  Add sex and gun play and you have a rootin’ tootin’ hit which this show clearly is.

     KILLER WOMEN, an ABC mid-season show, is a network attempt at the modern western.  Sofia Vegara and select group of producers adapted this from an Argentenian show based on actual cases where women murdered men.  It was an anthology that detailed the reason for the woman’s crime and ended with her committing the act.  Some of the women were abused, some were in other desperate circumstances, and some were just petty, vindictive, or psychotic.  The American version, developed by Hannah Shakespeare centers the procedings around a female Texas Ranger, herself a secret victim of abuse, who specializes in tracking down female killers.  A continuing story thread has the Ranger trying to divorce her abuser, a prominent local politician.  He constantly puts up legal roadblocks while attempting to re-establish his control as she begins an affair with a handsome FBI agent.  This switch from anthology format to a permanent main character was made to make the show more accessible and unified.  It’s not a bad show as many critics would have you believe.  It just needs to be in a better time slot (it’s up against two popular shows; CBS’ PERSON OF INTEREST and NBC’S CHICAGO FIRE)and time to find it’s footing.

     The reasons JUSTIFIED is successful and KILLER WOMEN’s broadcast order has been cut from 8 to 6 (which means it’s doubtful the show will return after it’s run) probably have more to do with the networks they’re on and the time slot more than anything else.  FX is home to JUSTIFIED and being a cable station it’s freer to explore more adventurous content than network television.  Also it’s a niche show which means the expectations are more narrow.  People who liked the ground-breaking THE SHIELD, which put FX on the series map along with NIP TUCK, have decidedly darker and more perverse tastes.  JUSTIFIED can push the language, nudity, and violence envelope significantly where KILLER WOMEN must rely on a certain slickness instead.

     In today’s television landscape, the western is not a dead genre but a tricky one.  Conceptually, the idea of a lawless frontier parallels the internet and other emerging communication delivery systems that we are still trying to figure out how to regulate and control.  The hackers are like gunslingers and outlaws.  The average user is a town denizen.  And the government…well, they’re the government.  This new situation makes cowboys relevant again.  Maybe not like the 50’s and 60’s.  More like revisionist stories from the ‘70’s.  Every so often we’ll get a HELL ON WHEELS but it will most likely live on the rough and tumble grit of cable land and maybe NETFLIX, AMAZON, and their future relatives.

      

MYTH & THE SUPER HERO STORY

Myth stories were created to explain and ground religious and philosophical ideas of a particular culture.  Myth stories give people solace and hope.  Since every culture has a mythology, these stories are inherently universal regardless of nuance and individual story divergences.  Essentially we all want to believe our lives have purpose and destiny so myths strongly resonate.  Since myth connects religion and philosophy, true believers, agnostics, and metaphysicians can share common ground.

     The most popular movies, television shows, and stage productions are either complete myth stories or contain this genre as a major influence.  The most common myths are those from the ancient Greeks, which were famously re-purposed from those master duplicators, the Romans.  Variations of these show up all across the world.

     In the U.S. the super-hero story most often found in comics and graphic novels are the equivalent of Greek Mythology.  The line is clearly drawn between the good guys and the evildoers and for many years this was very satisfying.  Superman saved the world from Braniac.  The Fantastic Four always foiled Dr. Doom.  Wonder Woman kicked plenty alien butt too.  As time went on and trends came and went, this good vs. evil formula, while idealized and wonderful, got stale because it didn’t reflect our increasingly complex world and evolving belief systems.  So to stay current, our super-heroes began to exhibit more and more flaws making them relatable.  They were still extraordinary crime fighters but suddenly they started dealing with conflicted emotions leading them to question their own worth and if good and evil were absolutes are situational.  Just like real people.  Batman and Spiderman in their everyday identities dealt with these issues from the beginning but now it started to affect their alter egos.  Suddenly the modern myth stories were very reflective of our humanity and popularity increased.

     They modern super-hero is now just as angst-ridden as the guy with two ex-wives demanding an increase in alimony, the worker who has been downsized out of a job, and the woman living from paycheck to paycheck.  Add to that, sudden betrayals of trust from your most trusted ally, and a banking system that’s ripping you off right and left.  So now the super heroes fight battles on all fronts and sometimes the solution of one problem reveals an even bigger dilemma.  Drama.  Not only drama but serialized ever-escalating drama.  Real entertainment.  This is why the Iron Man feature franchise, the Thor Franchise, The Captain American Franchise etc. are so lucrative.

     ABC’s MARVEL AGENT’S OF SHIELD is part of this new evolution.  Originally the acronym stood for Supreme Headquarters, International Espionage, and Law-Enforcement Division. It was changed in 1991 to Strategic Hazard Intervention Espionage Logistics Directorate. For the ABC show it’s Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division. These agents in this organization are not super-heroes with super powers other than their specialized very human skill sets.  But they do deal with humans and other forces with otherworldly abilities.  The fact that the main cast is all human with flaws and secrets makes them people we empathize with and worry about.  The first few episodes were not super compelling but watchable.  Many of my friends complained that it was lightweight.  But because Joss Wheedon, an exceptional ex-prod, was behind this show, I was willing to give it some time to grow.  I was glad I did.  By episode 6, we really begin delving into the psychological depths of the characters and suddenly this show is still a comic book but something more-----it’s an interesting character study with emerging lessons in humanity.  Phil Coulson, the leader of the group, was supposedly killed in the recent movie, THE AVENGERS, and brought back to life.  (This is the tie-in with the Marvel movies so that anytime a new one is about to drop; this show can be part of the marketing.  Story-wise this idea also works well.)  Coulson has been altered because of his death experience and is now a fundamentally changed guy who looks at the world differently and treats his team with an infectious tough love.  As they encounter a variety of world-threatening situations, they also grow psychologically (slowly, because this is television) and have little “light-bulb” moments about who they are in the world.

BLACK NATIVITY: Process & Form

After viewing this film at a screening the other night I briefly had an exchange with the minister husband of a writer friend of mine. He appreciated the film. I told him I felt it was a faith-based film done correctly. It doesn't transcend or challenge the genre with its message. It follows a standard, non-surprising story arc, but within the form of a musical, it holds up well in terms of competence of execution.

A little background:
This film almost didn't get made. It's been reported that some major male stars like Samuel L. Jackson and Laurence Fishburne passed on the pivotal role of the troubled minister grandfather. The production appeared to be dead in the water but somehow Forrest Whitaker (who happens to have studied opera and has an amazing tenor voice) stepped into the role of the minister and Kasi Lemmons (the writer/director) was able to get her vision transferred to the big screen. Obviously the budget was modest but the visuals and the highly stylistic approach (owing much to traditional musical theater) proved to be an asset.

My big concern with many faith-based films is not the faith part. It's the drama/story part. A good story tracks a protagonist's journey from problem to solution. The protagonist battles, overcomes obstacles, each which increase the tension, until he or she, takes a definitive action, that ultimately decides his/her fate. In the best stories, the protagonist has a deep self-revelation dramatically earned by what has come before, that causes the definitive action that resolves the story. In some faith-based films, the drama is over-wrought and melodramatic. The hero is tempted by the evil ones and the mishaps are piled on with increasing consequences. The wise, sage character advises the hero that the LORD will solve everything if that belief is just acknowledged. So the hero acknowledges his short-comings and presto, the problems are magically solved and cue the big gospel number and the story is over. The glaring problem here is the conclusion is not earned dramatically and the hero doesn't solve his own problem so what has he really learned? This weakens the story and the hero and drains all the dramatic tension from the story. In a good story, the hero learns how to solve or attempt to solve his own problem. Many faith based films opt for the "Preachy message" delivered by the Sage to save the day. This drives me nuts because this approach is cool in church but it is not dramatic and undercuts good story. It's lazy craftsmanship and sends me running out of the theater screaming "Booooooo" or makes me turn the channel with the quickness.

BLACK NATIVITY understands that it's a musical pageant on celluloid. It is a hybrid of the Ritual and American Musical Theatre forms. The story is predictable but the actors resist going over the top and infuse their performances with naturalistic expression. This approach works. It satisfies the True Believers, both dogmatic and more progressive, and the general not-so-particular religious folk. I hope it does well because it is a lesson to those who want to tell this type of story with competence and also raises the bar for those stuck in their dogmatic, over melodramatic, and lazy storytelling ways. On a larger scale, it helps open the doors to the idea that black filmmaking is capable of variety. We don't all run around slapping ho's around and shooting up the 'hood! Nor do we have to be a man wearing a dress over-playing yet another feisty, tired stereo-type that lacks the depth and individuality of say, Flip Wilson's Geraldine. We do have that but we're also capable of more...much more.

MIXING GENRES & SERIALIZING

s Angeles

In features as well as television, the trend these days seems to be genre mixing. Most shows and movies aren't just detective, horror, comedy, drama, action, or romance. They are usually hybrids like the horror-comedy, the action-romance, the detective-horror etc. That's actually an exciting trend because with genre expansion, stories can be varied and intriguing.The downside is the weaknesses of both or more genres have to be addressed in order for the story to really work well. In television, gone for the most part, are stand-alone episodes where each story is solved during the run-time of a single show. Their still may be a major crime or issue resolved at the end of the time but there are other story threads that bleed over into next week or the weeks to come. Marketing-wise, this soap-opera approach is viable because it can keep audiences coming back if the stories strike a chord. When the writing is exceptional (JUSTIFIED, BOARDWALK EMPIRE, THE GOOD WIFE) the show is firing on all cylinders. When the writing is not so wonderful but the characters have appeal, the shows also maintain favor. When the writing doesn't connect then the show crashes and burns. I'm not a big fan of the serialized thing because it's so easy to venture into melodrama and unless it's satiric, melodrama doesn't float my boat. However, melodrama does float many other people's boats. This is why soaps and soap opera style is popular. Just caught DRACULA last night and I was intrigued on one hand by the re-interpretation of the myth but on the other hand I was put off by the soapy melodrama. Dracula as sex-symbol isn't new; Frank Langella did it well on Broadway and in the 1979 film. This new Dracula is not only sexy but he's got an axe to grind with fiends more fiendish than himself----a centuries-old cabal of dirty, wealthy businessmen who happened to off his wife a few centuries in the past. So the bad-boy villian is made sympathetic by pitting him against evil capitalists. Even Van Helsing, who's been his antagonists in the traditional lore, is now an ally. So Dracky and VH take on big business. Original in a way and also kooky but...okay. But does it have to be so psuedo-Shakespearean with all the royal angst and declarations of vengeance? DRACULA is actually REVENGE and BETRAYL set in the 1800's with some demonic shenanigans mixed with the sex and blood. I'll watch 2 more episodes before I decide whether to put a stake in it or not but I'm not too optimistic. GRIMM, which premiered it's current season, before Drac, is a much better bet. It's a supernatural-action show with a good dose of comedy thrown in. I watch it primarily for the Big Bad Wolf. He's hysterical, and like the show, doesn't take himself so seriously. It's all in the tone.