A Media Slathered State of the Union Plus Some Michael Mann Musing

It's time for an update on how my media intake changed since moving back to my hometown, Los Angeles.

For about three years, I watched movies. That was my intake. I watched them for class and for fun - and if both happened at the same time, I was happy. I graduated with a degree in communication from a wonderful little institution in San Antonio, Texas: Trinity University. Very late in my college career, I found that path of study and been giddy ever since. Wow, I can watch television and movies and get a rather large diploma! This is great!

Against all odds, I got into a grad school, getting a master's degree in Cinema Studies from NYU - the only school that would accept me. And I kept watching movies. I was introduced to avante-garde and films floating in obscure film history purgatory. Most people seem to enjoy these films and want to talk about them and in effect, shine a brighter light on obscure pieces. I run the other way. I want to bring the mainstream movies to the academic circle. Let's float a barstool argument here: in final papers, who wrote about films that grossed the most money? I might be in the running for highest grossing papers (Braveheart, Syriana/Babel, Toy Story, Sin City, Minority Report, 300, and The Fellowship of the Ring).

I don't think I am cut out for the PhD, but maybe. I don't think it would be in film exclusively. It would be in a fuller media discussion, including television, video games, and social networking. I like films and I like them a lot, but I am interested in so many other things. I LOVE teen television. I love watching the progression of video games moving closer to an interactive social networking experience. Oh and by the way, I like sports. And its easy to let it in my life - it happens all the time.

Basically, I need structure. Let me list what I like again. (Movies, Television, Sports, Video Games, and Fiction Lit.) By my count, that's five things, right? How do I take care of all my interests? I think I need a spreadsheet - which sounds a lot like my dad (genes right?).

I feel disconnected right now. I have not watched a TV show that wasn't on DVD for at least a month now. Been to a few movies. TRANSFORMERS 2 was actually pretty funny and then it turns into a large special effect (which last time I checked still wins an Academy Award). No one is better than Michael Bay when delivering a special effect. Incomprehensible, maybe. But I wonder if that's not the point. PUBLIC ENEMIES was great! I loved it. Michael Mann's violence is heavy, intense yet restrained. Women are a problem because as heterosexual men, we love them, but they get us into trouble.

But color is so very important to Mann and completely based on the film's setting. Think of HEAT, everything is blue and grey because that's LA - the streets, the sky, the uniform. COLLATERAL is mostly dark, but filled with many colors because that's what an LA freeway looks like - a cornucopia of visual onslaught. Everything is blue in MIAMI VICE because the water is blue. PUBLIC ENEMIES uses a warmer color pallette, mostly brown. The shootout happens in the woods, the cars are brown and the roads are still dirty, not completely paved.

I have too many interests. As Colin Cowherd, host of The HERD on ESPN radio: simplify your life. "If I haven't worn a shirt in the past three months, I get rid of it." I need to pare down my media life to the important things. But I can't live in a hole either. Geez, Charley, want some cheese with that w(h)ine? I think I might take up running.

Where Have All The Theme Songs Gone? Just one anyway.

At a recent Sound Symposium at NYU, Steven Wurtzler presented a topic on sound design, particularly that of retail locations. Now, I am currently employed at one such retail location and I can tell you that Wurtzler is right. Music is an integral part of the experience. In fact, customers come into to the store and routinely sing along with classic tunes such as "Suspicious Minds" by Elvis Presley or my personal favorite "Don't Stop Believin'" by Journey. Besides merely providing some background entertainment and pleasure, it can help in the selling process.

For instance, a lot of the music is danceable and try as I might to resist, I can't help myself from getting my groove on. The music also creates the right environment. Sometimes a simple volume adjustment can make all the difference. Retailers wants positive energy and shoppers want to shop in a fun place. Louder music can help that.

Theme parks understand this as well. There is constant music playing evoking the ouvre of the particular land. Wurtzler adapted the idea of sound design to everyday life. An experience will be more memorable if there is ample sound design.

The same is true for television shows and their theme songs and nowhere is this more noticeable than on the DVD sets for "Dawson's Creek." Part of the enjoyment is Paula Cole's "I Don't' Want To Wait." She really belts it out. However, beginning on the third DVD set and continuing through to the end of the series, something changed. A different song replaced the great one, changing the entire complexion of the fictional town, Capeside. So irked by this change, I began to mute the television and play the song through my computer. It's not the same experience, but as close as I can get.

At times, some consumers grow tired of a theme song when campaigning through episode after episode. This specific example advises those consumers to appreciate a well-done and well-placed theme song. Appreciate the song!

The Most Fun on Television Right Now!

No, I won't make you beg...for long. "Mad Men" is my favorite show that still breathes, but the second season ended weeks ago. Does it qualify as "right now?" No.

"Heroes" is too serious, and quite frankly hasn't been up to par since the season one finale. The second season really faltered with the exception of the Kristen bell addition. The third season began poorly, but is making a comeback. However, the series is too inconsistent to be worthy of my spontaneous exuberance. "Pushing Daisies" is adorable, cute, and sweeter than a green apple Jolly Rancher. Sadly, not even Lee Pace's eyebrows could keep it afloat. "Gossip Girl" is naughty, and sometimes the characters are mean. "90210" is pure bubblegum, and I can't blow bubbles. I am purist. I chew.

Wait with baited breath no longer. My answer: "Privileged." You say, "I have no idea what you're talking about!"

Here's a primer. Megan Smith (JoAnna Garcia, more on her later) graduated from Yale and attempted work in the publishing world. Things didn't work out and Megan moved back home to Florida to tutor two extremely upper class high school twins.

"Privileged" is witty and still fun. We're not talking Aaron Sorkin witty though, just kind of cheesy and cute witty. As always, the characters appear genuine and their actions are credible and fall in line with their personalities. Sage (Ashley Newbrough) and Rose (Lucy Hale) are the twins. Sage is overprotective of the younger Rose and feels Megan driving a wedge between the two. Generally, the show has a laid-back atmosphere - the problems aren't hugely critical, but ramifications could be serious. For example, Rose cheats on a test. As a tutor kept under close surveillance, Megan cannot afford this kind of mishap.

A regular, seemingly trivial dilemma such as cheating on a high school exam only works if we care about those involved. Why do I want Megan to succeed? Well, in short, she's likable. Obviously! Let's flank the question a tad by taking a back route.

In a recent commercial, The CW ran a blurb from TV Guide saying that, "Megan Smith is the new Rory Gilmore." Rory is, of course, the endlessly likable daughter component of the "Gilmore Girls." What does it mean to be the new Rory? A blend of smarts and high integrity. More cute than bombshell. Very adept with a Qwerty keypad cellphone. These are all qualities that would describe Rory Gilmore, the person. But is there something more?

Does Rory symbolize something bigger than herself? "Gilmore Girls" might be the network's best and highest-rated show. Both shows feature prominent culinary aficionados. Does TV Guide surmise something about the future of "Privileged?" Is this show CW's new the little show that could? While "Gossip Girl" and the newly rejuvenated "90210" grab headlines and magazine covers, "Privileged" is CW's best show. It's wholesome with a touch of sweet and snappy, like Honey Bunches of Oats. Scrumptious!

Getting Intimate - Rachel Getting Married

Rachel Getting Married would like to amend the age-old saying: "Fish and family stink after 3 days." This film posits that it doesn't take that long - only a few minutes.

Jonathan Demme's latest release Rachel Getting Married, is an unexpected visual onslaught. Featuring a hand held camera, Demme's film is rarely stationary. Even if a conversation uses a shot-reverse-shot pattern, Demme uses different angles.

All of this makes viewing Rachel an uneasy experience. A seemingly banal and innocent conversation might erupt into a violent verbal exchange. No remark too insulting. No topic too taboo. At times, the camera may linger instead of an obvious cut to the speaker, allowing a real-time display of a character's reactions. In short, Demme and his DP, Declan Quinn a visually arresting character drama. Normally in a character study, the camera lets the characters tell the story, but not here.

Most striking is the proximity of the camera. A good portion of the film frames the face or the head. Initially, unsettling, the cinematography supports the intimacy of the film. The audience feels close to the characters - so close that we can see a twitching eye, and even the slightest frown. Rachel Getting Married does not allow its characters the freedom to hide within the frame. We know how a character feels, even with their best attempts at hiding it beneath a smile.

Adjusting to a differing family dynamic is difficult. Think of a family as an automobile and whenever a new family member enters the mix, the car rocks a little bit. In this family, the new family member is Kym (an overrated, but still effective Anne Hathaway), a recovering drug and alcohol addict. She's lost her chance at a first impression. She has to earn the respect (and love) from her family. Kym believes that her family should be more supportive, but we understand their trepidation given her history. This family has to learn how to function with its additional member. Likewise, Kym must adjust to her new social dynamic.

Everyone wants to feel like a part of the family. Rachel Getting Married forces us into this role and it's hard when you have no influence. All we can do is feel the highs and lows of a dynamic and diverse family.

The West Wing Restrospective - Exceptional Writing!

Remember when NBC had "Law and Order", "Friends", AND "The West Wing?" Feels like a long time ago doesn't it? "Law and Order" is still around, but "Friends" and "The West Wing" have ended their run.

I watched three episodes of "The West Wing" yesterday and I was reminded of one of the greatest television pleasures - exceptional writing. Two of writer Aaron Sorkin's television series were cancelled quickly ("Sports Night", and "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip"), but "The West Wing" had success for a long time. "The West Wing" won four - FOUR! - Emmys for best drama! (All this coming in the years of the HBO juggernaut "The Sopranos.") Not only did they win those four Emmys, but they won them in CONSECUTIVE years! Only "Hill Street Blues" can claim that kind of success.

"The West Wing" was nominated for Best Drama every year it was on - even in the days when Aaron Sorkin left to create "Studio 60." Sorkin is master of the "walk and talk." He is more notorious for it than praised. Does it create unnecessary and complicated camera work, or does it raise the tension? I think the latter and its probably an accurate demonstration of what happens in the most famous office in the world. Most of the walking and talking occurs while characters deliver paperwork. I would imagine that's probably a lot of what happens around the oval office - paperwork.

The series is also surprisingly funny - but not in a laugh out loud way. It's more like a chuckle. When was the last time you laughed during one of the most respected dramas in history? Sorkin treats the president's offices just like any other office, one where e-mail slows to a hault, and desk chairs have squeaky wheels. But the writers always remember the weight of a show about the president of the United States. A series with this premise can be as topical as it wants. It's not like watching "Mad Men", where you feel overwhelmed by the tension. Obviously, "Mad Men" makes it work (because I like it!), but "The West Wing" is so refreshing because it manages to do both.

The other thing a well-crafted series needs is a balance between good writing and actors who deliver them. With a Sorkin show, the pace is so extreme and the lines need precise and quick delivery. The Emmys recognized the actors as well. Allison Janney won multiple Emmys for her turn as Press Secretary C.J. Craig. So too for Bradley Whitford (Josh Lyman), Richard Schiff (Toby Ziegler), and the late John Spencer (Leo McGary). Martin Sheen (President Bartlett) went without an award. But for a show that emphasizes an ensemble cast, I guess it's okay that the president doesn't win an award and his cabinet gets the credit.

Aaron Sorkin might be the stealth bomber of Hollywood. He wrote A Few Good Men (Rob Reiner) - based on his own play - but most people remember the Tom Cruise/Jack Nicholson showdown in the courtroom. More recently, he wrote Charlie Wilson's War (Mike Nichols) and his penchant for blending humor with serious consequences is evident. I love you Entertainment Weekly, but sticking "The West Wing" at #23 of the greatest TV shows of the last 25 years behind shows like "The Real World", "South Park", "Lost", and "Roseanne"...is grounds for impeachment!

Netflix the DVDs and re-discover this classic!

Synecdoche, NY - Unkept Promises

In all fiction projects, an author makes promises to the audience, reader, etc. The protagonist is this kind of a person with a specific personality and unique friends. These are just a few things shape a character. The film, novel, or short story tells us where we are going.

Authors may not give a specific road map. At least we know what kind of a journey is in store. The character has flaws that need confronting or demons that need exorcising. The audience expects that something will engage this character in a specific regard. The author makes promises to the reader and the reader expects them to be fulfilled.

Don't misunderstand. I don't hate twist or surprise endings - they are fun and exciting. But the author must produce them organically. Character and plot progression must feel natural.

For the first two-thirds of Synecdoche, NY writer/director Charlie Kaufman (Being John Malkovich, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) presents characters that I care about. Now, I think I understand the Kaufman aesthetic enough to say that it is a unique experience and that I will need to think through some issues in order to comprehend the narrative. But Synecdoche, NY doesn't fulfill on its promises. In fact, it doesn't even make any.

I understood the plight of the characters and issues that need solving. Kaufman only takes me so far down those roads. The last third of the film is overly complicated and leaves me searching for the cinematic equivalent of "verbose." Synecdoche, NY is verbose. The film is complicated just for the sake of being complicated. Kaufman complicates the narrative to such a degree that the last third of the film could have shown ANYTHING and I would not be surprised. It seemed that anything that happened could be justified through Caden Cotard's (Philip Seymour Hoffman) psychosis. And because his psychosis became convoluted, anything was possible.

Allowing oneself to take a plot in seemingly any direction is lazy filmmaking. The audience feels no satisfaction because Kaufman did not allow the audience to want anything. Synecdoche, NY presents a fork in the road with about a million options - and none of them are the wrong choice. When I say that Kaufman didn't make any promises, I mean that he didn't provide a road map for the film. There is a responsibility of a filmmaker to guide the audience. He did that for the first two thirds of the film but then sabotaged his narrative with Caden's neuroses that allow for any possibility I had no idea what would come next. Synecdoche, NY is lazy filmmaking because if there are no"right" answers, then there are no "wrong" ones either.

Think of the difference between two Tarantino films: Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. Both feature non-linear narratives, but one narrative grounds itself in a specific moment - meeting up after a jewelry store robbery. Tarantino controls the narrative and answers the questions that we need answered. Who are these people? How did they meet? What happened during the robbery? What events led to the current predicament? Tarantino goes back in time to answer these questions in a restrained way. Pulp Fiction jumps around in narrative purely for the sake of it. This non linear structure does not enlighten the narrative. Reservoir Dogs is a complicated and robust story, but I understand it immediately. Pulp Fiction is only complicated and thus REQUIRES multiple viewings to understand the film. I hold films accountable for this mistake.

An author cannot expect an audience to make the journey twice - just to understand it. WANTING to see a film again and NEEDING to see a film again are two different things. And don't accuse me of "not getting it" either. A story needs to be clear. It's the difference between good ambiguity and bad ambiguity. Good ambiguity leaves a reader with thoughts about where a story can go OR where a story came from. Bad ambiguity leaves the reader wanting more OR questioning the validity of the narrative.

Don't force me to see a movie again! MAKE me want to see it again!

Sixteen Candles - John Hughes Update #1

Part of me feels like a presidential candidate needing to hold a press conference explaining my actions. For reasons unknown, movies were not a part of my childhood. My family isn't cinephilic in the least. Mom likes going, but Dad just can't understand why anyone would want to spend two hours of a sunny weekend in a dark theater. What is the fallout of all this? Charley has seen only one John Hughes movie: Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

And I don't even like it! Cameron's (Alan Ruck) phone conversation with principal Rooney is the only funny part. I can't buy Broderick either. His demeanor is awkward and I don't think he can carry a movie. Election (Alexander Payne, 1999) works for me because Broderick's Jim McAllister IS Matthew Broderick!

What John Hughes films haven't I seen? Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club, and Pretty and Pink. When my friends discuss these films, I stay silent. Having not seen them, I don't have anything to contribute. So, when I admitted that I had not seen this Molly Ringwald trilogy, I am surprised there wasn't an earthquake from all the jaws hitting the floor. It's surprising for two reason. The first is that these films are quintessential coming-of-age tales for my generation (those born in the early to mid-eighties). The second is that these films are about high school, something that I love. I could watch She's All That (Robert Iscove, 1999) and Can't Hardly Wait (Harry Elfont & Deborah Kaplan, 1998) anytime. If they're on television, I can't turn away.

My friends were very willing to help. MH lended Sixteen Candles. I decided to watch this trilogy in chronological order, so let's begin with Candles. Ringwald's Samantha is immediately recognizable as an outcast teen. She has her own circle of friends, but is obviously not part of the jock and motorcycle crowd. To make matters worse, her family forgot her sixteenth birthday. The film follows her day at school. The object of her desire is typical jock-with-money Jake Ryan (Michael Schoeffling). The quest brings these two characters together.

Ultimately, the reason to watch this film is for The Geek (Anthony Michael Hall). A courageous outsider with stereotypical prowess with technology. At first only interested in obtaining the underwear of a girl, Candles of course finds his reputation soaring like an exponential curve. An unlikely partnership forms between Jake Ryan and The Geek. The Geek has information about Samantha that Jake Ryan wants. Jake Ryan has a girlfriend that he is all too happy to dump on The Geek, who is all too happy to take her.

If you've seen any teen comedy, then you know where all this is headed and I don't need to explain it to you. In the end, I think I was a little disappointed. I like Molly Ringwald as the lead, but Schoeffling mails it in. His best scene is with The Geek, but only because Anthony Michael Hall CAN carry the scene. Schoeffling only serves as the eye candy.

A post on The Breakfast Club is coming...