Showing posts with label Joss Whedon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joss Whedon. Show all posts

Sunday, 14 June 2015

Convalescent TV

The Convalescent
The Convalescent (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Thank heavens for Netflix and DVDs.  Another of the pleasures of sick leave: testing out an episode or two of everything and then binge-watching the ones I like.  Here is a brief review of how I've been wasting my time in front of the tube (while doing my exercises! and folding laundry!)

Series based on comic books:

Marvel:

Daredevil

  • This was a really well-done series.  Excellent female characters (Karen the secretary, Vanessa the love interest, Elena the determined old lady, Gao the crime lord),  which flesh out the canonical comic-book males (Matt Murdock, Foggy, Wilson Fisk), who can be human while the canonical figures start out rather black-and-white.  Matt Murdock is particularly well done because though he is the superhero protagonist, he is not superhuman.  He is a good fighter but he can be beaten and when he is wounded the marks will still be there 3 episodes later, knife-wounds breaking open if he tries to do too much, bruises still visible on his face, moving stiffly and not up to as much in the next fight.  He can interpret sounds and smells and so on better than others but he's still blind and it's not perfect.  Emotional consequences are not shrugged off; if someone lies, three episodes later they still aren't trusted by those they lied to. Matt Murdock's insistence on going and beating people up, and getting beaten up, is clearly shown to be obsessive and irrational; these decisions are questionable and should be questioned.  And very well acted and produced; dark and scary.  I'm glad it's been renewed and I'm sorry I've finished off the first season already.

DC:

All of these are considerably more cartoonish than "Daredevil", meant for a younger (I'm guessing) audience.  They've done an interesting thing and pitched the 4 shows to different age-groups, trying for a spread across the whole demographic.  These are in order of target-age group as far as I can guess:

Flash

  • Teen romance, well played by the engaging lead, Grant Gustin, and the equally engaging lead villain, Harrison Wells.  Painted in very broad strokes. Made a point of introducing not only a gay super villain but also a gay heroic ordinary human, Captain Singh, who has a good relationship with his male fiancĂ©.  I particularly liked that in a teen-targeted show.

Arrow

  • Mid-twenties bromance with girls. Spectacular protagonist, and filmed in Vancouver; the Queen mansion was filmed on Vancouver Island (I was sure I'd recognized it!) Engaging enough that I bought the 3rd season on iTunes, but there is a terrible hole in the show, which is the female lead, played by Katie Cassidy, who is cardboard.  I have spent 2 seasons wondering why they haven't killed her off when they have killed off so many much more interesting characters.  I will probably finish watching the 3rd season but honestly, I can't stand watching that actor.  


Gotham

  • Same age group as "Constantine" but for different tastes - for an audience who likes black-and-white moral tales. Not as good as Daredevil (Gotham = NY which makes the comparison inevitable). But doing something very different.  For one thing, it's a cartoon where Daredevil is an attempt to make it real. One clearly-marked bisexual female character; more hinted at. Lush production, well acted.  I haven't got round to watching more than the first few episodes though.

Constantine

  • Early thirties audience, people old enough to have some real regrets. Really good so far (3 episodes in). Matt Ryan is excellent as the disreputable, entertaining, chain-smoking (so we know he's not morally trustworthy) protagonist who lives in the gray zone.  He isn't as obviously bisexual as John Constantine is in the comics, and they seem to be setting up a romance with a woman, which I disapprove of because too obvious.  But the series is still worth watching.

Science Fiction/Fantasy:

Orphan Black

  • The series that convinced me that Joss Whedon is not the only TV writer to watch.* Orphan Black is a SPECTACULAR SHOW, carried entirely by the excellent writing and the amazing, really amazing, lead actress.  I am only part-way through the first season.  Everyone should go watch Orphan Black right now. You will not be disappointed. 

Game of Thrones

  • I avoided watching this for the longest time because I read Sady Doyle's article on Tigerbeatdown, which pointed out that there was a lot of misogyny, sexism, rape as tool to motivate positive character change in women, and also racism in Game of Thrones. And then I read her follow-up article on a reaction to that article; and then I read her follow-up a couple of months later on the spectacularly brutal and violent personal threats she had been receiving by the thousands since she wrote the first article.  And at this point I thought, I don't want to be in any way associated with any of the people who have been attacking Sady Doyle because eww, these people are creeps, so if they like Game of Thrones I likely won't. But eventually I started watching it anyway and although I wish it weren't, it is awesome.  I am enjoying it very much indeed.  Mostly because of Peter Dinklage/Tyrion Lannister, who has not raped anyone so far and is not particularly misogynistic either, though he may be racist.  But also I like Catelyn Stark, and Ned Stark, and every other Stark.  I gather it would be very foolish of me to get too attached to any Stark however.  (So far only one is dead, but I'm only halfway through season 3). 

*In fact, after Age of Ultron and Agents of Shield (though I like Agents of Shield), I have regretfully recycled my "Joss Whedon is My Master Now" T-shirt.  Not that he is not skilled and tells good stories, but he has been toiling in the Marvel mines for a long time now, and I would like to see him telling his own stories again.  I am just not the target market for 4-hour fight scenes (though, for some reason, I loved them in Mad Max).

Next week: British crime series; and miscellaneous other series.

Monday, 23 June 2014

Echo becomes Ajax; Iphigenia fails to become Buffy, poor thing

Dollhouse characters. L to R: Paul Ballard, Vi...
Dollhouse characters. L to R: Paul Ballard, Victor, Echo, Sierra, Topher Brink, Adelle DeWitt, Boyd Langton (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I know for a certainty that there are many other things I should be doing, but am enjoying writing about Dollhouse and Sophocles way too much to stop. Would Sophocles have survived if he'd had to write serial television? Can character development ever = character stasis? Does an ensemble TV series ever = Oedipus? Just how classical is Whedon?
However, today I will put off these questions because working on Iphigenia and Buffy. So, still having fun.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, 31 May 2014

Sophocles, Dollhouse, and academia.edu

Cover of Dollhouse Epitaphs
Cover of Dollhouse Epitaphs (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I spent Thursday evening updating my listing on academia.edu, and decided to upload a few conference papers, if I had any lying around that I was unlikely to write up for publication, but that people might be interested in reading.  In the end I settled on a few that were more likely to be of interest to non-classicists.  So I have uploaded one on Helen in the Penelopiad, and one on Atanarjuat and the Oresteia, in addition to the old "Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Greek Hero Revisited" which is by far the most widely-read piece I have ever written.  On looking through my other conference papers I found another that might interest Whedonites, on Sophocles and Dollhouse, but it isn't in shape to be seen yet (quite literally; I can only find the outline, and it needs rewriting).  So that's what I've been doing today.  

Was this what needs to be done? Or, to put it another way, was it the most urgent of the tasks before me? Well, hardly.  But in fact that paper raised some very interesting questions, at least for me, and it is a pleasure to think through some of them again.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, 11 July 2012

more sacrificial virgins

A vestal virgin, detail of an engraving by Sir...
A vestal virgin, detail of an engraving by Sir Frederic Leighton, created Lord Leighton, the first British artist to be given a title. (around 1880) The artist died in 1896. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
We've finished the sacrificial virgins paper, I'm nearly finished the paperwork from a conference I ran 3 months ago, and I'm due at a conference this weekend.  Then away for a month travelling.

We've cut out about 2/3 of the paper; all the most interesting stuff, because we need to establish the ground first, which I am so over by now, and we've only got 20 minutes.  I'm looking forward to writing the article that will be based on the paper. Whedon uses sacrificial virgins over and over and over, in various forms.  By the time he got to "Cabin in the Woods" I would have said he had done everything he could with it.    (Apparently i was wrong.)    We could write a whole article just on Drusilla.

Several problems arose while thinking it through.  Here's one: how do you identify a "sacrificial virgin"?  By comparing a character to a similar character in Greek tragedy?  Well sure, but what made you pick that character in Greek tragedy?  Why didn't you pick some other character, in some other genre?  One tends to assume one's fixed points, as Catherine Brown points out (I've been listening to her podcast on comparative literature), but in fact there are no fixed points; the reason you decided to compare X and Y is because you had already compared X and Y and decided you could talk about it.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, 23 June 2012

a week of Sacrificial Virgins

James Murray, editor and philologist
James Murray, editor and philologist (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Spent the week putting in a little work every day collaborating with Lauren on our paper on Sacrificial Virgins in the Whedonverse, of which we now have a complete draft, approximately twice as long as anything we'd actually be presenting; so stage two, cutting it down to size and adding pictures, is next week.

We're comparing sacrifice of virgins in Greek tragedy to the same persistent trope in the Whedonverse.( Or do we mean motif?  And what is the difference?  Must check my Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms (1), which I just downloaded (2)(3)(4)...)


I am running into a problem with our basic premise.  Sacrifice of virgins is a motif that shows up absolutely everywhere.  Andromeda for a start.  Every fairytale where the knight saves the princess from the monster-of-the-week.  I've just checked the Stith-Thompson searchable online index (http://storysearch.symbolicstudies.org/ ) and there are 318 motifs involving "princesses"; 159 involving "maidens"; 98 involving "virgins" (and another 95 involving the Virgin Mary).  Most of these aren't about virgin sacrifice, but the prevalence of stories about virgins/maidens/(always virgin) princesses demonstrates the persistent fascination Western culture has always had with the post-pubescent pre-marital phase of the female life cycle.  Sacrifice of women in that phase is always represented as particularly powerful in several ways (both magically or religiously efficacious, and emotionally wrenching), because of the supreme value of the victim, sacrificed at her moment of greatest desirability and perceived worth to the community.

Saturday, 9 June 2012

Sacrificial virgins

Took the day off Homer to work on the conference paper I'm collaborating on for the Slayage conference in July in Vancouver, with my friend Lauren, who is doing all the actual work, including finding the bibliography, bless her.   We now have an outline that could easily produce a 90-minute lecture.  Trim out 80% of it, add some pictures, and we're done.  Only we have some hard choices to make.  Is the whole paper about River Tam?  Or Buffy?  Or Winifred Burkle? Or should we skip Whedon entirely and just talk about Iphigenia, and leave the Whedonverse application as an exercise for the reader?
Enhanced by Zemanta