The Silence of the Squints

Spoilers Ahead!

Bones‘ third season finale was an emotional roller coaster for loyal viewers. When an episode starts with Booth’s (David Boreanaz) funeral, you know you’re in for one helluva ride. Obviously, Booth isn’t really dead since you couldn’t have the show with only half of the comedic duo (it would be like Abbott without Costello). The funeral was only a ploy to catch some nameless, faceless man wanted by the F.B.I. and to allow us viewers to see Dr. Brennan (Emily Deschanel) go to pieces in her own very special, compartmentalized way (she wants to identify all the remains in the Jeffersonian’s vaults, even those whose next of kin died some 400-years ago). Upon realizing Booth is still alive, Brennan gives him a cathartic punch in the face. And that’s only the teaser!

In what is easily the best scene from this whole season, Brennan confronts Booth about why he kept that he was alive a secret from her in his bathroom while he’s in the tub drinking beer and reading comics. Hilarity ensues and we eventually learn that Sweets (their psychiatrist) decided to keep the news from Brennan. Sweets, usually a needy schmuck but kind of endearing, steps over the line here (in my opinion) by keeping Brennan in the dark about Booth. Brennan thinks so as well and lets him know that he may not be invited back to be their therapist anymore if he pulls another stunt like this. Although, as the episodes goes on, it becomes more obvious that Sweets’ actions are less about him being cruel to Booth and Brennan, and more about making the audience suspicious of him because….

Brennan receives another “gift” from Gormogon – a jawbone. It appears that Gormogon wants her to add it to the skeleton made of his victims in the Jeffersonian’s basement. Zack and Hodgins decide to perform one of their wacky experiments to gain insight into Gormogon, but Zack ends up suffering severe burns due to a chemical explosion. Zack is rushed to the hospital while the rest of the team reels from the news that Gormogon has to have someone on the “inside” of the Jeffersonian since the skeleton of Gormogon’s victims is stolen making every one of our beloved cast a suspect.

Usually, when shows try to make you suspect the ensemble cast that you see from week to week, it feels flat and hollow because you know that it can’t really be them. The great thing about Bones is that you could (to varying degrees) become suspicious of your favorite characters. Although, in my not so humble opinion, I think they laid it on a little too thick in Hodgins’ case. It would have worked better (and been a little more subtle) had he respected Zack’s wishes and refrained from turning on Zack’s meds. On the other hand, I was more than willing to buy it was Sweets despite the very obvious fact that Sweets doesn’t know much about biology, chemistry, or constructing dentures (at least not when compared to the Squints). I was more than willing to throw Sweets to the proverbial wolves because he can be a little too needy at times. Sadly, it wasn’t Sweets.

When it became clear that it wasn’t Sweets, I was preparing myself for the typical route these things usually take – the janitor/clerk/technician/administrator who has worked at the Jeffersonian for 30-some years and we’ve never seen on-camera ends up being the culprit. It usually feels cheap when shows do this to us, but it’s better than having to part with one of our beloved cast members. Sadly, the Bones writers decided not to do the expected cop out, instead, they served up Zack.

And, I’m willing to let it be Zack. I don’t want it to be Zack. I’d prefer that it hadn’t been Zack. But, I can deal with it being Zack since he is so practical and devoid of emotion, at times, it can be creepy. However, I would have preferred that the Gormogon mystery go unsolved until next season, so that the writers could have laid the groundwork a little more. It was shocking and hard to understand why (he’s logical… yes, we know… but, could you have showed us how Gormogon “turned” him in a flashback or something?). In an interview with Eric Millegan currently available on TVGuide.com, Millegan mentions that the writers were going to address Zack’s post-traumatic stress caused by his tour of Iraq, but the writers’ strike prevented that storyline. It’s sad that Zack didn’t get more time… but, in the end, I believe that it rings true enough.

I’m already eagerly awaiting the beginning of Bones‘ fourth season to see how Brennan and the rest of the cast cope.

The Son Bests the Father

When I told a co-worker that I went to see Son of Rambow last week, he looked at me like I had two heads. He asked me why would I want to see a sequel to a Sylvester Stallone movie. I informed him that I didn’t see a sequel to one of Sly’s most enduring film franchises, I saw a film “inspired” (for lack of a better word) by Rambo that surpassed it in everything – humor, heart, and, yes, even violence.

Son of Rambow takes the familiar tale of sheltered-religious-boy who isn’t allowed to listen to music, play video games, or watch any tv (even those boring documentaries in science class) who meets the loud- bossy-secular-boy that changes his life forever to new heights. Instead of just having yet another tale about how the strictly religious should bend a little and how the strictly secular should acknowledge some of the good things that come from a religious background, it is also a film about the healing and connecting power of art.

Once Will Proudfoot (Bill Milner) accidentally breaks his religious sect’s rules and watches a movie – Rambo: First Blood – his imagination explodes with creative possibilities. When Will learns of Lee Carter’s dream to win Screen Test, an amateur film contest run by the BBC, the two pool their creative resources. Will provides the story material from a dream – Will needs to rescue his father, Rambo, from an evil Scarecrow and flying dog – and Lee provides the camera. The film-within-a-film concept creates hilarious moments (the boys approximating martial arts movements) and perilous moments (when Will tries to perform a water stunt and almost drowns) while paralleling both boys’ complicated family lives.

Through all the ups and downs in the boys’ lives – Will’s mother is being wooed by a member of their strict religious group, Lee’s older brother makes him into a servant, French exchange students arrive en masse – it is the process of creating a film with the minimal resources (not sex, drugs, or rock’n roll) that brings about the boys’ newfound maturity. The portrayal of creating art as eye-opening, life-affirming, and friendship-building is a breathe of fresh air into the coming of age genre.

Back in the Game

“Partners in Crime,” the first episode of Doctor Who’s fourth season (or series, depending on which side of the pond you’re on), is a beacon of delight compared to the majority of the episodes on its sister show, Torchwood. David Tennant, back in the lead role, effortlessly moves through his scenes with panache. Catherine Tate is back in the role of Donna Noble. Originally planned to be a one-off appearance in the 2007 Christmas Special, Donna is here for the entire fourth season. Honestly, I couldn’t be happier!

It is a breathe of fresh air to have the companion be someone who isn’t in love with the Doctor. Instead of unrequited love, we get a superstar comedy team (at least in the capable hands of Russell T Davies), bouncing from one problem to the next, bickering happily as they save the world (and London’s dieters) from annihilation.

Davies manages to strike just the right balance of comedy and poignancy. The Doctor and Donna’s hijinx is tempered by the sweeter moments Donna has with her grandfather. With any luck, we’ll be coming back to earth to visit Donna’s granddad in a few episodes. He seems like he’d definitely be up for fighting some aliens or saving the world.

And, finally, Davies picked the perfect way to do a send up of dieting and the crazy lengths people will go to to get thin without being crass. He continues to be one of the best writers on television and I eagerly await the next twelve episodes.

2008: The Final Odyssey

Arthur C. Clarke, author of 2001: A Space Odyssey died on March 19, 2008.  Clarke was remembered in a brief obit in The Guardian’s books section.  A sample of Clarke’s work can be found here (it’s a short story entitled “The Nine Billion Names of God”).

Marry, Shag, Throw Off a Cliff

At the end of this not-too-terribly-boring-but-still-draining work day, I’m in the mood for a laugh, so I dug up this clip of John Barrowman and David Tennant on YouTube.  Enjoy.

Halloween Treat

Neil Gaiman’s The Graveyard Book will be available around Halloween. I’m even more interested in reading it, now that I know it’s a homage to The Jungle Book, however, instead of a boy being raised by animals when his family dies, a boy will be raised by ghosts in a graveyard when his family dies. For some reason, the idea of a living creature being brought up and taught how to live by the dead seems like a very intriguing premise (not to mention an excellent treat for Halloween).

Neil Gaiman has been commenting on his blog about the gestation of this project for the last several months on his blog. It’s always interesting to read about the workings, anxieties, and random tangents that are involved in the writing process (at least it is to me).

Can’t Wait for Memorial Day Weekend in the City!

My favorite New York City gals will be back in action on Memorial Day Weekend. I’ve been trying to steer clear of the spoilers, but I can’t keep myself from watching the trailers on YouTube. From what I can divine from the trailers, all four women will get their own subplot and they’ll be spending a lot of time together in all kinds of glamorous Manhattan locales. I’m really happy to have all four of them together again, especially after the series finale with Carrie off in Paris. The show just didn’t feel right with Carrie being out of the city and without her friends. I know that was the point, but I really missed the female bonding at the end of season six. It’ll be good to see the foursome together again!

Watch the trailer.

Is Buffy Bi?

Joss Whedon once again proves that he’s a friend of Sappho with his latest twist in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics – Buffy is sleeping with a woman!

Whedon began writing Buffy comics last year under the designation, Season Eight, which picks up with the Scooby Gang about a year after the events of the series finale that aired on UPN in May 2003. Whedon’s decision to write “canon” content in comics has allowed Buffy fanatics (like myself) to get our slayer fix.

The New York Times broke the bisexual storyline yesterday, and I would have missed it (and been completely surprised when I read issue #12) if it had not been for my devotion to Pink is the New Blog. I love PITNB and cannot be mad at him for loving Buffy as well, but I wish I could’ve been surprised. Such is life.

I’m very happy that Whedon has decided to allow Buffy the space to explore her sexuality. I don’t think this in any way negates her love for Angel (and Spike?), and it shows Buffy grappling with her identity. It’s probably one of the few areas where you can show Buffy questioning what she’s doing because, unlike most of us, she already has a “calling.” She’s a “chosen one;” she’s been appointed by the universe to kill vampires, demons, etc., so where can she be unsure of herself? The bedroom.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea that Buffy is bisexual. She’s still being a positive role model for women by being positive about sexuality, yet she’s allowed the confusion of not knowing what you’re doing with your life all the time.

The Other Film About Royal Intrigue

I saw The Other Boleyn Girl this Saturday, and I wished I’d stayed home and watched the other film about royal intrigue. Which other one? Undoubtedly, there are several films about royal intrigue, but none as great as The Lion in Winter. How can you top Katherine Hepburn? You can’t. Not that I was expecting Boleyn Girl to even approach the quality of Lion, but I’d hoped for more tidy storytelling and better performances.

Sadly, Boleyn Girl is much like the dim-witted ladies-in-waiting that populate this film, all beauty and no substance. The costumes are lush. The colors of the dresses pop off the screen. The angles of the shots are visually interesting and the shots, themselves, are artistically composed taking into consideration colors, body spacing, etc. It’s a very pretty film, but so is Atonement and a dozen other lackluster films.

The problems are with the script, pacing, and the acting of the leads in the alleged love triangle. (I won’t even touch historical accuracy because I’m not familiar enough with the period, nor, does playing with historical details bother me if it makes an entertaining film.) The dialogue is unexceptional and rather expositional. As with many period pieces with women in pretty dresses, we must hammer home the concept that women are property to be bought and sold to men in power, yada, yada, yada, in pretty much those exact words. The sexual dynamics and historical complexities of the time are greatly simplified to such an extent that all three of our allegedly complicated leads becomes little more than cardboard cut-outs.

Scarlett Johanson’s Mary is the “good” one. We know this because her father tells us that she is kind and sweet at the beginning of the film. The Boleyn father also mentions that Anne is more complicated (ie, the “bad” girl) than that. These comments are said as we watch the girls and their brother frolic in a field at some very tender ages (the three are probably somewhere between 5 and 10 years of age). The next scene is “good” Mary’s wedding to some uninteresting merchant who she allegedly loves and who allegedly loves her. A couple plot devices later, the King Henry is thrown from a horse and being nursed at the Boleyn residence. Apparently, Henry’s pride is hurt because Anne wasn’t thrown from a horse, so they send “good” Mary to dab his wounds with a wet piece of cloth.

Henry, played by Eric Bana, acts like the most simple-minded teenage boy in the world. Anyone who was really this stupid and on the royal throne would have been poisoned or killed some other way by plotters and opponents many years before reaching whatever ripe ‘ole age he is supposed to be at during the film. Intellect and sense aside, Henry somehow becomes besotted with “good” Mary (I guess she dabs at wounds really well) and invites her and her family to the castle to be his mistress. Henry sends Mary’s hubby to the front lines and he’s never heard from again which gives Henry the opportunity to bed Mary.

Now, “good” Mary complains about wanting to go home as soon as they reach court, but one night with Henry and Mary is in love. Never mind, why? How? Such silly questions are not bothered with in this film. She just has to be “in love” with him for the story to move forward. We know this because she proclaims it ad nauseum for the rest of the film.

And, what of “bad” Anne? She, apparently, feels that “good” Mary slighted her since the king became infatuated with Mary and not her. Now, why anyone should be infatuated with Anne is unknown to us. She’s uppity and pouty and has a cruel streak. Nevertheless, she perceives that her sister betrayed her in some way by being forced into being the king’s mistress. Anne takes a side trip to the French court and re-appears, allegedly all the more sophisticated for her time with the French. We, the audience, would have no way of knowing that Anne is “sophisticated,” though, if the characters in the film had not bothered to tell us multiple time. In fact, what Henry (and others) take for sophistication, we, the audience, take as even more annoying behavior.

Apparently, what Anne learned in France is that you don’t sleep with a guy until he divorces his wife, splits from the Catholic Church, and marries you. Why Henry would be motivated to do this for the appallingly dull and flat-chested Anne when he could start up with Mary’s heaving bosom again after she gave him a son, who knows? For some reason, he does (depicting characters’ motivations or even pretending that characters have motivations isn’t this film’s strong suit). By this point in the film, we’re moving along at a fast clip, jumping from one historical moment to the next. From Anne and Henry’s wedding to the incest trial to the death of Anne and Mary’s brother to Anne’s own beheading (I felt like they filled all this stuff in within the last 20 minutes).

The moments of reprieve from the inane “good” girl vs. “bad” girl fighting over a huge dolt are few and far between but much appreciated. First, Jim Sturgess (the delicious and vocally talented English actor who had the starring role in Julie Taymor’s musical extravaganza, Across the Universe) is a welcome diversion. He oozes charm as he chats with his sisters concerning court gossip. He has his ear to the ground and he is there to play the intrigue game. Unfortunately, he is limited to a handful of scenes and his potential gay sexuality is implied but never given a full blown subplot.

Second, Kristin Scott Thomas appears as the Boleyn girls’ mother. Always a class act, Thomas shows what true acting is with a simple look. Though her dialogue is confined to the more stereotypical “We shouldn’t be exploiting our daughters, it’ll only lead to our heads on pikes”-type of warnings, her presence is greatly appreciated. She’s the sophisticated, grown woman that men should be fighting over.

Third, and finally, there’s the pleasure of David Morrissey hamming it up as the Duke of Norfolk (the uncle of the Boleyn girls) whose scheming gets the Boleyn family into deeper and deeper trouble. He plays a great lecherous character reminiscent of Ripley Holden, his casino-owning-womanizing-conniving character in Blackpool.

While these three secondary characters played by talented actors make The Other Boleyn Girl tolerable, they, ultimately, can’t make it great. Which is why, I would wholeheartedly recommend going to your local rental store (or your Netflix queue) and renting The Lion in Winter. Katherine Hepburn and Peter O’Toole in a battle of the wits for two or so hours as Eleanor of Aquitaine and King Henry (the second, not the eighth). Though they aren’t as young as Scarlett, Natalie, and Eric, Kate and Pete are infinitely more nuanced performers with an amazing script that allows them to showcase their many talents.

Out of 5 stars:
The Other Boleyn Girl = **1/2
The Lion in Winter = *****

American Gods is FREE to READ!

Harper Collins is doing something shocking for a book publisher – it’s putting a book online for FREE! That’s right! Please, do not die from a heart attack or you won’t be able to read it. They’ve put up American Gods by Neil Gaiman for the month of March (to celebrate Gaiman’s blog being 7 years old). Sadly, they have figured out a way to prevent you from downloading it or printing it off your computer screen. Nevertheless, those of us at desk jobs can keep the webpage open and read a couple pages every so often as a mini-break from work.

The decision to put American Gods online for free is the result of fans’ voting. Earlier in the month, Gaiman asked fans and visitors of his website to decide which of his books should be available online for free. Yours truly participated (although I voted for Coraline, not American Gods). I’m still very excited that it’s available (even though it wasn’t the one I wanted) because that means that more people will find Neil Gaiman and hopefully decide to read his books.

I’m personally excited to re-read American Gods. The first time I read it (about 4 years ago), I was really thrown for a loop by what he was doing in the book. It isn’t a traditional novel. I don’t want to ruin it for anyone who hasn’t read it yet, but…. the ending isn’t like a “normal” novel ending. I found out later through reading the blog that Gaiman did this intentionally to make the book pretty much unadaptable for tv/film. Since learning about this artistic choice, I’ve a newfound interest in trying the book again to see if I like it better than I did before (because I must confess that I was really annoyed by the atypical ending the first time around).

American Gods is also very different from Gaiman’s other work. It’s not the same saga-atmosphere that his graphic novels, Sandman, produce. It’s not comic like his project with Terry Pratchett, Good Omens. It’s not a straight fairy tale as Stardust is (the book and the film). Basically, it’s not representative of Gaiman’s work, but it is one of the most interesting things (though many either love it or hate it) that he has done. (Have I entreated you to read it enough by now? I hope so. Please, go read it!)