Thursday, February 19, 2009

Jhoom Barabar Jhoom: Once the Inertia Takes Hold, It's Hard to Stop Swaying to the Rythm



2007's Jhoom Barabar Jhoom was a financial flop in India. The film cost Rs 25-crore (250 million rupies -- slightly more than $5 million) to produce and was unable to reach the bar necessary to stay in release after its first week in Indian theaters. It had made around Rs 6-crore after its first weekend -- including international sales -- a figure close to $1.2 million and less than a quarter of the film's production costs. The film's lack of financial success, in India at least, didn't stop those critics who reviewed the film from raving over the entertainment value of the film. It's Tomato Meter rating is 83% fresh (with only 6 reviews), and the two critics who have rated it for Metacritic give it a 70 (not great, but good). The users on Metacritic haven't been as kind as the reviewers -- though none of the users have commented regarding why they rated the film as they did.

So we are given two distinct representations regarding JBJ's entertainment value. American critics giving one opinion and the domestic Indian reaction providing evidence of a disconnect between the American critical reception and popular opinion. What's going on here? Cinerati's trusted source on all things Bollywood David Chute thought highly of the film and his opinion was the primary reason that cinerati viewed the film in the security of our Sanctum Sanctorum recently. The film was a pleasurable combination of romantic comedy, physical comedy, and musical. As Chute puts it, "Jhoom Barabar Jhoom is light entertainment so gratifyingly well crafted that it’s uplifting."

He's right, but then why the disconnect between certain audiences? What is it about Jhoom Barabar Jhoom that critics, and cinerati, found so engrossing that many viewers missed? Or is about "missing" something at all? What are the roots of the differing viewpoints? There seem to be three where the critic would find a film (especially a foreign one) enjoyable, while native and mainstream audiences might find the film wanting. These include, a slow first act, a passing engagement with the conflict between Pakistan and India, and a "Western" feel.

Jhoom Barabar Jhoom opens with Bollywood veteran Amitabh Bachchan as a kind of Gypsy Storyteller/Greek Chorus fusion. As he sings and dances, in his vibrant costume, he sets the stage and stakes of the narrative. The setting is nothing less than a classic lovers introduction, straight out of Shakespeare, where the destined lovers from vastly divergent backgrounds encounter one another in what begins as a mildly antagonistic situation. Nothing new about this setting, we've seen it a hundred times or more. It works when the characters are charming and it fails miserably when the characters are flat.

In this case, our fated couple are Rikki (Abishek Bachchan) and Alvira (Preity Zinta) and they meet at London's Waterloo Station. He's a borderline con-man from India, she's a born Brit from the middle-class with Pakistani heritage. On a typical day class and racial issues would prevent them from even greeting each other pleasantly, but today is different. Today the train station is so crowded that the only place Rikki can find to sit is next to the lovely Alvira. At first, she is uncomfortable tells Rikki that she is waiting for her fiancé to arrive on the Birmingham train. After he reveals that he too is engaged, the stage is set for conversation and romance...But wait, they're engaged right...or are they?

To pass the hours, Rikki and Alvira share stories about how they met their respective fiancés. Rikki's story comes first, and so does the films first and third problems.

It takes almost 15 minutes to get through the story's set up, and it seems to take forever for Rikki to tell the story about how he and his fiancé Anaida (Lara Dutta) met in Paris. There are several attempts at slapstick comedy during his tale, but most of them fall flat and one begins to wonder how Abishek Bachchan was cast in this film in the first place. The written jokes are dull and the narrative drags until the act ends with a spectacular dance number on the streets of Paris that incorporates the Arc de Triomphe, the Eiffel Tower, and the Louvre.

The dance number recaptures any waning audience interest. Jhoom Barabar Jhoom seems to have approached the introduction of the first full dance number with baby steps, as if it were educating an unfamiliar audience to a new form of entertainment. It is during Rikki's story, and the build up to it, that one begins to think that Jhoom Barabar Jhoom is attempting to introduce "Western" eyes to Bollywood storytelling. It doesn't work. All it does is make the first act take far too long. Like the more Western parts of Bride and Prejudice, the attempts at making the storytelling style less dramatic only make the story less entertaining. Thankfully, once the film begins to "dance" the enjoyment begins to rise.

Alvira's tale about her fiancé Steve (Bobby Deol) is hilarious, but it is also the tale where the underlying cultural and racial conflicts come most to the fore of the narrative. In her tale, we find out that Alvira has made a promise to God to never marry a dark-skinned man. It is a promise she modified when she "fell in love" with Steve, but the scene where she makes the promise is simultaneously amusing and disturbing. Imagine a similar scene in an American film where race is one of the underlying relationship barriers and you can begin to see the problem. One can imagine that Indian viewers might not appreciate the lighthearted way that this subject was treated. They might not have found it disturbing at all, but it isn't hard to imagine it rubbing the audience at least slightly the wrong way.

Aside from this glitch, Alvira's story is wonderful -- especially for those who are comic book fans. Steve, you see, has saved Alvira from being crushed by a wax dummy of Superman. Her rescue is followed by a wonderful magical number which features wax caricatures of several members of the Justice League and Bobby Deol's physical presence and charisma is undeniable. One finds oneself visually drawn to him during the number, even though one of the most beautiful women in the world is standing right next to him.

Continuing on the roll of engaging narrative, following Alvira's tale Rikki tells his second tale. This tale is an imagining of what Rikki and Alvira's future would be if only they weren't each already engaged. There is little dialogue, though much song, in this sequence and it is one of the most romantic examples of visual storytelling ever to be filmed. The "what if" Rikki and Alvira live an entire lifetime in the tale, and the segment ends with a soft touch of romantic pathos as this romance suffers the inevitable fate of all romances.

While one can imagine that the attempts to appeal to Western viewers, the cursory addressing of cultural/racial tensions, and a slow first act could make some view the film as less enjoyable, one finds it almost incredible that anyone who has watched the last half-hour of the film could do anything other than rave about Jhoom Barabar Jhoom.

The final half-hour is one long dance number during which our secondary couple "Anaida" and "Steve" are introduced to one another and also when all the plans of our fated lovers completely fall apart. The music, the dancing, and the costume changes are fantastically enjoyable leaving the audience with the desire to dance. Bobby Deol's presence once more steals the scene as he dances with power and conviction. The only flaw in the act is that the dance number fails to fully simulate the "bed trick" during the number. There should be, and sadly isn't, a discreet section of the number where the dancers change partners only to find they are more comfortable with their new partners than with the partner they arrived with. This is a small quibble, but it is significant. This number should be an allegory for the entire film's narrative, and it is but for the one flaw.

Overall, Jhoom Barabar Jhoom is an engaging romantic comedy that stumbles a little, but gets its audience to a fulfilling ending.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Is the Geek Sexy Star of The Guild Felicia Day a Griefer?

Will Hindmarsh, of the excellent game design discussion website GamePlayWright, posted the following excerpt from Jimmy Fallon's late night show. In the piece, sweet and innocent Felicia Day -- star of THE GUILD and Dr. Horrible (among other things) -- decides to help Jimmy Fallon in his quest to become a better MMORPG player. The bit is humorous, and was obviously intended to be, but it touches upon one of negative aspects of online gaming...that of the griefer -- the person who likes to run around killing n00bs.

Watch the video below to see if you catch what I am referring to.



Did you notice her reaction when Fallon mentioned that he called his character Davarnon? She shows an understandable amount of revulsion at the childish name (though it's better than Lothar of the Hill People -- see below -- an actual Mike Myers D&D character), but she also expresses that the name may be why Fallon is griefed so often when playing the game. The implication, from the limited representation of her gaming style in this video, is that she would have griefed him as well.

One of the major drawbacks of MMOs is the tendency of some players to take great enjoyment in killing new players over and over again...for laughs. As a gamer, it can get irritating when one is on the victim side of the equation, and we find of Player vs. Player action to be juvenile at best. MMO companies have yet to find good solutions to this style of play, as those who most enjoy it will pursue ways around any in game fixes. A famous example would be when Asheron's Call veterans, unable to attack less experienced characters directly, would antagonize some large beast, have it chase them, and then run by some newer player leaving the new players character crushed by the monstrosity.

The Fallon piece, and Hindmarch's comments, also makes clear the distinction between the fanciful suspension of disbelief of the new player and the pragmatic "assumed systemic" worldview of the veteran. The veteran seems to no longer be participating in a narrative fantasy simulation experience, rather they are viewing the experience through the rational systems underlying the mechanical functions of the game universe. This usually occurs gradually as the experienced player discovers the limitation of the given simulation and adapts their expectations to suit the mechanical framework. In a computer simulation, this is the only possible response, other than complaining to the programmers to expand the scope of the simulation.

One of the advantages of table top gaming is that it need not suffer from this problem. If a table top game's systems cannot emulate a given desired narrative situation, the players and game master can make up the difference through player interaction or Game Master fiat. This can be one of the more rewarding experience in a table top game, the crafting of new rules on the fly. You cannot do that in a computer simulation, you must accept the systemic framework you are given.

The jadedness of such limitations may be partially explanatory for the griefing phenomenon, but given Felicia's recent tweets regarding a D&D game she is playing in as a Death Knight...I am thinking that she vents her frustrations on the console/gaming table. That's something that both tabletop and computer based gaming can offer...stress relief.

It breaks our heart to think that Felicia Day might be a cruel griefer, we'll chalk it all up to stress relief.

Michelle Nephew has some words about role taking in gaming environments in her dissertation, we'll have to pull that out for a post on role playing as wish fulfillment on a later post.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Cinerati Lexicon #2: Gothtentious

Last August we presented our first Cinerati Lexicon entry. That entry focused on what we like to call filmic cultural selectivity. It has come time once again for the Cinerati blog to share another definition with you based on our movie going/appreciating experience.

Like most film fans, we have a flixter account and are fond of examining how closely our "friends" and our tastes match up. In the past, this has led to some pleasant surprises. Not the least of which is that Anne Thompson's opinions match Cinerati's so well that we are considered "Soul Mates." This is true even with our vast disagreement on Pretty Woman. She likes it a lot and we think that it overly debases the Eliza character from My Fair Lady and is thus only worthy of scorn. We must admit though that the recent episode of Flight of the Conchords had a compelling review/interpretation of Pretty Woman. Suffice it to say, that the close proximity of our film tastes will make Cinerati more likely to trust Thompson as someone who likes the films we like.

Other comparisons have been less rewarding. During our most recent foray into the flixterverse, we encountered something we thought impossible. One of my flixter friends, who shall remain nameless in order to protect their life, rated The Incredibles a meager 1/2 star out of five. We had believed that such a rating was only possible when the reviewer lacked this little thing we call a soul. Alas, it appears that this misguided individual does in fact have a soul -- and is a pretty good reviewer to boot -- so their must be some other explanation. Cinerati has yet to discover what affliction this individual suffers from that makes them hate The Incredibles, and makes them believe that Tom Cruise's War of the Worlds is better than The Matrix, while simultaneously having a proper love for YouTube videos featuring Bettie Page photographs and music by The Cramps.

Our initial suspicion was that this individual was extremely Gothtentious.

What do I mean by Gothtentious?

Gothtentious


Gothtentious is a neologism combining the words Gothic and pretentious.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (in a March 2008 Draft Addition), Gothic can be defined as: "Of or designating a genre of fiction characterized by suspenseful, sensational plots involving supernatural or macabre elements and often (esp. in early use) having a medieval theme or setting."

Additionally, Gothic may be defined as (OED Additions Series 1993): "A style of rock music, and the youth culture associated with this, deriving originally from punk, and characterized by the dramatically stark appearance of its performers and followers, reminiscent of the protagonists of (esp. cinematic) gothic fantasy, and by mystical or apocalyptic lyrics."

The most common definition of pretentious, according to the OED, is: "Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed; making an exaggerated outward display; ostentatious, showy."

Thus gothtentious would be when someone is "attempting to impress by affecting a demeanor which disdains all that is not suspenseful and macabre. Especially, the gothtentious person reserves particular disdain for lighthearted and bourgeois entertainments. The individual will also praise material that is otherwise lacking in merit for the mere fact that it contains an appropriate amount of macabre or suspenseful content."

The gothtentious person would often be willing to take a position of disdain for a particular entertainment vehicle merely to distinguish themselves from the crowd. Such opinions may be driven by a narcissistic desire for attention, even negative attention, from others, or from an underlying sense that one is held in similar disdain by society at large. In these cases, the gothtentious person is acting out against society either for attention or as revenge.

An example of this kind of gothtentious would be the following:

Films like The Incredibles are a perfect example of Hollywood, and America's, obsession with bourgeois morality tales. In it, the dichotomy between hero and villain is clear and even the "children" of the tale can act without fear of any real consequences. We all know how the story is going to end...happily. It is time to move beyond these stories and grapple with the underlying sense of despair intrinsic in the human condition. It would be much better to devote storytelling resources to narratives like insert Neil Gaiman, China Mieville, or Poe reference here.


Another example might be found within Michael Moorcock's excellent Wizardry and Wild Romance:

I think my own dislike of J.R.R. Tolkien lies primarily in the fact that in all those hundreds of pages, full of high ideals, sinister evil and noble deeds, there is scarcely a hint of irony anywhere. its tone is one of relentless nursery room sobriety: "Once upon a time," began nanny gravely, for the telling of stories was a serious matter, "there were a lot of furry little people who lived happily in the most beautiful, gentlest countryside you could possibly imagine, and then one day they learned that Wicked Outsiders were threatening this peace...." ...That such nostalgic pre-pubescent yearnings should find a large audience in England is bad enough, but that they should have international appeal is positively terrifying.


As Moorcock demonstrates, the gothtentious person could also be described as a kind of social provocateur who -- when in possession of a serious intellect -- forces other individuals in society to examine what it is about a particular entertainment vehicle they find so rewarding. Gothtentiousness need not be a character flaw but it can certainly be irritating when it is done without the wit and sophistication of a writer like Moorcock. One should also point out that when Moorcock was writing Wizardry and Wild Romance he was drafting a polemic which argued for a new form of fantasy fiction. Specifically, it was arguing for the style of fantasy that Moorcock himself was writing. This is no small coincidence and is evidence of the gothtentious nature of the work.

Monday, February 02, 2009

Funicular is Fun to Say: Waiting to Ride Angel's Flight Isn't




Last month Cinerati was chatting with Kevin Roderick of LA Observed about the various hidden treasures that can be found in Los Angeles. Eventually, the conversation turned to Los Angeles' famous funicular Angel's Flight. The funicular has been closed since February 1, 2001 after an accident resulted in one death and 7 injuries, but it has been an iconic LA landmark featured in a number of films and television shows. One might argue that no visit to LA is complete without a quick ride up the funicular.

Sadly, Cinerati has never had the chance to ride this historically important attraction. We have desired to ride the funicular since seeing the Burt Lancaster noir film CRISS CROSS, and the 1955 version of KISS ME DEADLY, in both films the inclusion of the funicular added greater verisimilitude to the atmosphere of the film.

Cinerati moved down to Los Angeles in August of 2000 and by the time we had settled into the city and could make the time to visit the funicular, it had been closed down due to the aforementioned accident. Thankfully, this may soon be remedied. According to LA Downtown News, the famous funicular might open "soon." How long soon is isn't exactly clear, but one can guess it is less than the 8 years we have already waited to ride the contraption. In a city as automobile centric as Los Angeles is, there is something special about being able to take a quick ride on something that has been around since 1901.

Note: The image at the start of this article is from the 1955 version of KISS ME DEADLY. The screen capture came from Electric Earl's ANGEL'S FLIGHT IN THE MOVIES PAGE. Check out the page and buy Images of America Angel's Flight book.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

I've Been 25 Random Thing'ed on Facebook

Yesterday, I was tagged by my friend Rob with the 25 Things "chain note." I spent about half an hour writing the response when I accidentally hit one of the hot buttons on my Firefox menu instead of hitting a tab. I had been switching between tabs to include links to some of the things I was commenting about and suffered the consequences. Specifically, I lost half an hour's writing as I backclicked and found that everything I had written no longer existed. It was a frustrating experience, so I am going to rewrite the post today. First, here on Cinerati so that the "world" can see it. Then I'll post it to Facebook.

So here's the gig:


Rules: Once you've been tagged, you are supposed to write a note with 25 random things, facts, habits, or goals about you. At the end, choose 25 people to be tagged. You have to tag the person who tagged you. If I tagged you, it's because I want to know more about you.

(To do this, go to “notes” under tabs on your profile page, paste these instructions in the body of the note, type your 25 random things, tag 25 people (in the right hand corner of the app) then click publish.)


And here goes:

1) I love to surprise people by having an affection for some part of popular culture that they do enjoy. I like it best when this is an unexpected shared "guilty pleasure." This is why I'll watch anything from "The OC" to "The Real Houswives of Orange County" as well as anything from "Heroes" to "Legend of the Seeker." I'm not one of those who seeks to lord my knowledge of a particular segment of popular culture, like...say... comic books or role playing games, over others. Rather, I am constantly exposing myself to new things in order to have these happy surprise moments.

2) I am pretentiously anti-pretense. There's a part of me that hates it when people talk about "THE WATCHMEN" as the "world's greatest graphic novel." First, it is a comic book. It was a 12 issue maxi-series. Second, it's really good, but there are so many good comic books that I have lost count. Third, most people who talk about how cool "THE WATCHMEN" "graphic novel" is have either a) never read it or b) are saying it to be "cool." It isn't cool to say WATCHMEN is good, it is merely true. It is uncool to say WATCHMEN is a "graphic novel." Maybe you are referring to the "trade paperback" or "Absolute Hardcover Collected Edition?" (Quotation marks around the first two reference are there to point out the error of the attribution in the first two quotes. The series is merely called WATCHMEN, comic book fans know this.)


3) I also think that Science Fiction and Fantasy Genre fans should ban Michael Chabon from receiving any awards until he tells off the literati in NYC. Michael is one of the shining lights of genre fiction. He could be the modern day equivalent of Lin Carter -- with far more talent. He could champion his influences so much that he ends up editing scads of anthologies and a line of books instead of doing a "McSweeney's" anthology intended for only the "literate" SF/F fan. Come on man! Help educate the literati that your GENTLEMEN OF THE ROAD is influence by Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser stories. Fans got it, your publisher pointed it out, but the critics totally missed it. Besides, they should be reading the Leiber stories. Maybe they can skip "The Snow Women," but the others...grrr. Your article on capes in the New Yorker was a good start (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/10/080310fa_fact_chabon), but I want more! Be a champion of the genre or no more Hugos for you! In fact, let's take your recent one away and give it to John Scalzi.

4) I like heavy metal, punk, goth, emo, pop punk, some rap, techno, classical, crooners, 50s rock, classic rock, and a long list of other music. I don't tend to listen too much to "modern pop," but I do think that Christina Aguilera has miles more talent than Britney and I own a couple Avril Lavigne cds. I am always in the mood for Prince. The same can be said for most Metallica. Let me put it this way. I like the Go-Gos, but I don't like Belinda Carlisle.

5) I prefer third person shooters to first person ones. This is because third person ones "tend" to have better stories than first person ones and they attempt to be more cinematic. It isn't because I get owned (pwnt) every time I log on to Xbox Live (though that does usually happen). It's more that I like "living the movie" more than I like taunting some 12 year old in Sheboygan as I repeatedly shoot him in the face.

6) Speaking of pwnt, Backgammon is Victorian English for pwnt and I have decided to use it on a regular basis. Some people might say, and I summon Balor FTW! I'll say, and summoning Balor means Backgammon beeyotch! Nice combination of bizarre Victorian formality and modern vulgarity, don't you think?

7) I am deeply devoted to my wife of 12 years (this May) and cannot imagine life without her. One look/call/email from her is a dose of condensed joy.

8) On that note. I always knew that I wanted children. I have worked with a lot of young people and really like kids. But I am amazed at how much I underestimated how much I would enjoy being the father of twin girls. I was excited when my wife and I decided to "try." I was overjoyed when I found out she was pregnant, and elated when I heard it would be twins. It all pales to the reality of hanging out with Nora and Clio. It gets better everyday. Which gives me some idea of how much they are going to break my heart from time to time.

9) I have currently put my study toward a Ph.D. in Politcal Science (focus in American Politics and Political Philosophy) at Claremont Graduate University on hold so that I can get an MBA at Cal Poly Pomona. I am at a point in my career where I want to transition from the non-profit world into the profit world and it makes perfect sense. My hope is to get hired by Mattel, Hasbro, or some sort of Entertainment Industry company. Some people think it's odd to put a Ph.D. at a top tier school on hold to get an MBA at a less prestigious (but still very respected) university. Not me. Anderson and Marshall are too expensive, in time and money, and work is able to reimburse all my Cal Poly tuition costs. Free = w00t.

10) This past year, I took my wife's last name. I told you I was devoted to her.

11) My daughter Nora Thekla Lindke is named after Nora Charles (of the Thin Man), my grandmother Thekla, and my wife Jody Lindke. My younger daughter (by one minute) Clio Millie Lindke is named after the muse of history (who Herodotus appealed to when he wrote his famous History), Jody's grandmother Millie, and my wife. In case you were wondering.

12) I believe that friendship is more important than politics. I actually have a whole theory that friendship is the root of politics properly understood. If a society is to be just, it must be a society of friends and when one treats those around him/her as friends one acts with greater prudence. One finds it easier to disagree agreeably with friends than with ciphers. That's not the whole theory (by which I mean philosophic outlook and not falsifiable theory, though I imagine one could design a falsifiable test given sufficient time).

13) My mother died of heroin addiction 10 years ago last October. Most of my friends know this, as I blog about it annually (http://cinerati.blogspot.com/2008/10/in-memoriam-ten-years-later-eugenie.html). The blog post is my gentile way of observing the jahrzeit.

14) One of my best friends from high school, he went to a different school than I did, committed suicide in April of 1999. We had just started rekindling our friendship which had stalled when I took my 5 year "semester off" from college. Eight years before he took his life, he told me how he would kill himself if he ever committed suicide. The method he described, was the method he used. I miss him desperately. He was a great person who introduced me to so many new things and gave me new ways of looking at things.

15) I'm a geek. I know this isn't exactly news, but it is true. I like comic books, role playing games, video games, and the occasional anime. If you can geek out about it, I'll try. That includes Formula 1. I'm a big Formula 1 geek.

16) I am a completist. When I am introduced to something new, if I like it I will try to find out as much about it as I can. If it is a game, I will buy it and all its expansions. If it is a philosopher, I will buy several translations of their works. For example, I like superheroes and role playing games. So I have made it a goal to own every superhero rpg ever published. So far, so good. That' includes Superhero 2044 and Supergame btw.

17) I still love every person I told I love them. Whether it was a friend or girlfriend, they still hold a special place in my heart.

18) I have been cruel to exactly 3 people. I am sure that I have pissed off or slighted countless others. I have been less considerate than I should have been many times (haven't we all?), but I have been cruel to only three. I didn't desire to be cruel any of the three times, but I was and I cannot forgive myself for what I did. If I explain the events to you, you might say something like "but you were young" or some other common saying -- I didn't kill anyone after all -- but there is no excuse for how I treated these people. One of whom I still love, though I haven't seen or heard from her in 20 years.

19) I love the TV shows I grew up with, but haven't liked any of the "re-envisioned" shows the networks have provided me. I prefer original BSG to the new one, which I think is too pretentious. The new Bionic Woman was horrible, as is the new Knight Rider. I have found that I like the shows "inspired" by the ones I liked. For example, I really dig CHUCK. This critique doesn't apply to movies. I liked the MIAMI VICE movie...a lot.

20) I am one of approximately 40 people who liked the SPEED RACER movie.

21) I have met most of my best friends because of my hobbies.

22) I truly value "non-partisan" non-partisanship. I love being the director of a program committed to increasing youth civic engagement. This means I want liberal young people to vote AND conservative young people to vote. To me non-partisan doesn't mean finding a "right" answer to a question, though some questions certainly have answers, it's about engaging and listening to everyone and helping them come to a better understanding of their own beliefs. I want you to become the best you possible (to be cliche). I love it when people not only have beliefs, but understand why they have them. I find they yell less when this is true.

23) I subscribe to THE ATLANTIC, HARPER'S, the digital versions of DUNGEON and DRAGON magazines, PYRAMID, REASON, THE NATION, THE NATIONAL REVIEW, and LOS ANGELES magazine. I usually pick up F1 at the news stand since it isn't any cheaper when subscribed to and it is always months behind schedule, it is shipped from Britain, either way.

24) I blog at http://cinerati.blogspot.com, podcast at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/geekerati, and my favorite daily blog reading indulgence is LA Observed http://www.laobserved.com/.

25) I love Los Angeles. It may well be my favorite city. San Francisco is great, Chicago is awesome, Montreal amazed me. But when I visited New York City and found that I had a proper West Coast disdain for "The City" (a term which always means San Francisco to me -- even though I am using it to describe NYC here), I knew I was a real Angeleno. Los Angeles is like a geode. People know it contains "sparkling riches," so they come here. Then they discover it is a pockmarked urban sprawl that doesn't look like the Oz they thought they were visiting. But after a while, you crack the city open and find a wondrous history and hidden treasures everywhere. New York tells you where to go to have a good time, Los Angeles challenges you to use your detective skills to find your joy. Whether that joy is mountain hikes, surfing, or looking around for landmarks from James Cain novels. I lived in the Baldwin Village (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_Village,_Los_Angeles,_California) part of Crenshaw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crenshaw,_California) before moving to Glendale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glendale,_California).

Monday, January 26, 2009

13: The Fear May Not Be Real, But the Laughter Certainly Is


Cinerati may not be the biggest proponent of reality television shows. We only watch "American Idol" during the auditions -- you know, when the show is entertaining. We only watch "So You Think You Can Dance" after the auditions when the real competition begins.

That may seem inconsistent, but the reality is that the finalists on Idol are all talented and Cinerati WILL have plenty of chances to hear the artist sing in the future. This is only half true for "So You Think You Can Dance." The dancers are all extremely talented after the audition stage, but one doesn't get many opportunities to watch elegant dancers -- so we take our dancing pleasures when we can get them.

Cinerati is also a big fan of "The Real Housewives" series of shows. We don't care if it's Orange County, New York, or Atlanta. Those mean women, not you Jeana -- you are a sweetheart --, but most of the other women are amazingly petty caricatures that Cinerati cannot resist watching.

We can now add one more show to our strange list of preferred reality TV, "13: The Fear is Real." Let me assure you, that if the fear is real, it is only real for the contestants. There is nothing scary about watching the show, except for how scary ridiculous the contestants are. The show currently airs on Friday nights at 9pm, which puts in in competition with "Monk" and means that it goes straight to DVR while Cinerati watches more thoughtful fare. But once that more thoughtful fare is over, we run straight for the DVR menu to see what shenanigans the producers of 13 have in store for the contestants.

What is "13: The Fear is Real" you ask? It is a high concept reality show that asks the essential question, "what if we made a reality show that simulates a horror movie." Instead of contestants getting voted off every week, one contestant is killed off by the "mastermind of terror." Like "Top Chef," there are two stages of each episode. First there is a small group activity that sets the stage for which contestants will have to attempt to survive that episodes "death ritual," a contest that simulates some murder from the horror films we all know and love. Anything from being buried alive to being burned at the stake can be the "death" highlighted in the final ritual. Of the two contestants who participate in this ritual, only one returns to the group. At the end of the show, one contestant goes home with $66,666.00. Not a lot, we know, but it is the CW.

Added to the natural selective process of the show's contests is a twist. Early in the show, one of the contestants acquired a "murder box" when the others weren't looking and became the mastermind's accomplice in crime. This "wolf among the sheep" will have the opportunity to use the box to kill, one at a time, up to three other competitors. So not only do the contestants have to worry about the mastermind, they have to worry about each other.

And worry they do. They are constantly talking about how "afraid" they are. If one were to design a drinking game where you had to drink every time a contestant said they were afraid, you would die by the end of the first 10 minutes. These people are crazy scared -- of some pretty mundane stuff. The casting directors did a great job of picking some of the most paranoid, phobic, and superstitious competitors possible.

Cinerati's favorite episode was when the murder box was first acquired by the -- yet to be revealed -- killer. One of the contestants was certain he knew who the killer was and wanted to "out" the killer. By the structure of the episode, the tension this contestant was causing threw them for a bit of a loop. But instead of letting the contestant sidetrack the show, they decided to seize the opportunity and make accusations a part of the game. The contestant was informed that if he wanted to publicly accuse someone he could, but two things would be required. First, he'd have to get everyone to agree that the person was the killer. Second, if he was incorrect he would have to participate in the death ritual that night. He was wrong and had to participate. What leads one to believe that this was an on the spot decision by the crew was that it is the only time that 3 people have taken part in the ritual. I thought it was a brilliant adaptation to the changing circumstances that the players can create and it has been great fun watching the paranoia build on the show since that episode.

So far, the killer has eliminated only one of the other contestants, but the choice could not have been better. You see, in the first episode one of the contestants acquired the box, but was too stressed out by the responsibility and returned the box to the location it was originally placed. She was the first victim of the killer. That's what Cinerati calls good TV.

The show isn't scary. The production values are laughable at times. But the contestants are an absolute riot, and the contests are often very creative -- especially the final rituals. Cinerati recommends this show to anyone who doesn't take their reality TV too seriously and would like to thank Ghost House productions, that's you Sam Raimi, for this excellent diversion. Once you realize the show isn't about the viewing audience being afraid, rather about watching how the contestants deal with fear, then you can sit back and enjoy the show.

Friday, January 23, 2009

IFC: Your Place for Comedic Nazi Zombie Horror



According to Anne Thompson of Variety, IFC has acquired the North American distribution rights to the Norwegian horror/comedy film DEAD SNOW. The movie is a high-concept extravaganza sure to make any fan of Sam Raimi's EVIL DEAD series of films, or people who play the Savage Worlds role playing game, very happy. It's got zombies, Norwegian co-eds, creepy old men in cabins, Nazi gold, Nazis, snowmobiles, oh...and the zombies are the Nazis. It makes my heart feel warm knowing that IFC does in fact embrace all kinds of "independent film."

Watching the trailer one can see definite Raimi influences, but the brightness of all the snow does make take away from some of the creepy mood factor that made the EVIL DEAD series so fun. Watch the You Tube trailer below, or -- for a better image visit the DEAD SNOW link above.




Hat Tip: Anne Thompson