Dramatic Television Thoughts...

Can You Remember Last Year's Oscar Winner?

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:39:00 +0000

On this side of the television screen...

I love to play a game with friends and family that basically involves quizzing them on who won the best picture Oscar for last year. A very small percentage of them get it right, and these are people who are "movie geeks" (when did the word "buff" go out of vogue?). Sometimes I go a bit further, and see how many from the past decade we can name. It was real tough to do.

If you go back further, and give people a multiple choice of what won best picture in a given year, the results are often enlightening. Let's head back to 1987 to illustrate the point. What won best picture that year? Here's the choices:

Full Metal Jacket
Good Morning, Vietnam
The Untouchables
The Last Emperor
Wall Street

When I just showed this list to several people, the results were not surprising. Out of ten people, only one correctly "guessed" the answer (and the person freely admitted to guessing). Three people chose "Full Metal Jacket" because, as one of them enthused, Kubrick always won Oscars; three chose "Wall Street" because they remembered Gordon Gecko's "greed" speech; two chose "The Untouchables"; and one couldn't decide and wondered aloud if it was a trick and the real winner wasn't included in the list.

Here's what's interesting, although they assumed it was true, Stanley Kubrick never won an Oscar. "Full Metal Jacket" wasn't nominated for a major award that year (unless you count writing). The actors of "Wall Street" and "The Untouchables" won awards that year (Michael Douglas and Sean Connery respectively) but the films weren't even nominated for Best Picture.

And the most interesting part of this experiment? The one who guessed correctly did so because he hadn't seen the film, "The Last Emperor," and chose it for that very reason. He just knew that "they always pick boring stuff like that."

What does that tell you about the significance of the Best Picture Oscar? The most enduring, culturally significant films of that year, the ones people revisit years later, were not winners; nor were they even nominated for the top prize. If you choose any given decade from the Academy's history you'll see a higher ratio of films that audiences have forgotten than those that are true classics.

Of this decade the only one I think will still resonate years from now is "The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King." A few seem like consolation prizes. "The Departed" got it because Martin Scorsese was passed over for decades for truly worthy films, although this one will actually be a minor entry in his oeuvre compared to "Raging Bull" and "Goodfellas." And the same can be said for the likes of "A Beautiful Mind," although Ron Howard had much stronger films much more deserving of awards, and "No Country for Old Men" which is a good film in the Coen Brothers' career, but not near their best like "Fargo" or "Miller's Crossing." A few are just plain odd choices, like "Chicago" and "Crash" which were widely derided the moment they were chosen. And then there was the one case of the "good ol' boys club" choosing one of their own with Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby." It was a very poor decade, not that you can't say the same about any other.

To be fair, I never hold up the Best Picture winner as the sole barometer of a year's film landscape. In fact, box office is a better time capsule for what society was like during that period. If you look back at the "classics" of literature we study in school such as Charles Dickens and Shakespeare, they were the popular authors of their age, not the critical darlings. But since this time of year starts the buzz, and people start speculating which one will win, I like to remind people how they'll feel about the winner twenty years from now.

~J. Spellman

"Google Thyself"

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:58:00 +0000

Not exactly what the ancient Greeks said, but fairly apropos considering the times. A Google search of my name reveals an interesting mix of web profiles, press releases, and so forth. Here's a sampling:

Ash Eldifrawi on LinkedIn
Ash Eldifrawi on ZoomInfo
Ash Eldifrawi on CrunchBase
Ash Eldifrawi on Facebook
Ash Eldifrawi on Lead411
Ash Eldifrawi on TradeVibes

Ash Eldifrawi press release (McKinsey & Company)
Ash Eldifrawi NetShops press release (PRNewsWire)
Ash Eldifrawi NetShops press release (RedOrbit)
Ash Eldifrawi collection of press releases

And the winner is...the lowest common denominator

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:10:00 +0000

On the other side of the screen...

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences made another bold move today to not recognize the best the art of movies has to offer. As reported in Variety, the powers that be decided to not allow the musical score for "The Dark Knight" compete in the best original score category for this year's Academy Awards.

They're reasoning is simple although misguided; since five people's names appear on the music cue sheet, too many people collaborated on the score and it's then somehow ineligible. It doesn't matter that all of the music was original, they just don't want to hand out too many Oscars.

The reason behind the five names is simple. Although Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard are the principal composers for the film, just like they were for the previous film in the series, "Batman Begins," they put down the extra names on the cue sheet to reward their hard working assistants with additional royalties. Let's face it, Hans and James are employed constantly and are not in need of money. Helping out their assistants with extra pay, not to mention more notoriety that may help them build bigger careers, is nice of the duo to do. To be penalized for it by an organization that's supposed to put art above commerce is not only despicable, but illustrative of the larger problem with the Oscars in general.

For too long the Academy has been protective of its brand, and the massive amounts of money its telecast generates throughout the world, at the expense of its core mission: to celebrate the best art film has to offer. Shouldn't an entity that holds this tenant as its source be doing everything it can to include as many films, artists and technicians into the competition as possible? Trust me, the Oscar brand is in no danger of being devalued based on who gets in.

This same exclusionary principle is true for the "Foreign Language Film" category. First, how can you crown a film "Best Picture" if you only include American productions? But, even if you allow for the existence of a Foreign picture category, why is each country only allowed to enter one of their films in the competition? Should a country be faulted because they turn out multiple films that are awards worthy? Should a talented filmmaker have his career stunted just because his country decided to enter a film that makes more sense to them politically?

These are but two of the many reasons why the Oscars are no longer relevant to the art of film making. They are not the slightest bit interested in rewarding excellence, only serving their own company ego.

~J. Spellman

Not gonna do it to Bond

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:25:00 +0000

On this side of the television screen...

Well, I'm as excited about the new James Bond movie as can be. I did consider doing a rev up to the new film by reviewing the old films. However, as you all know, the last time I did that for "The X-Files" the movie tanked at the box office, and I rather superstitiously fear I had something to do with it. I don't want to jinx Bond in the same way.

With that said, expect a full retrospective of "Knight Rider" to be posted soon!

~J. Spellman

Where's the blitz?

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:40:00 +0000

On the other side of the screen...

Schools are back in session, the summer movie season is winding down -- so where the customary blitz of commercials for new fall shows?

Well, there aren't many. The writer's strike that crippled the television industry last winter is still taking its toll on networks. This fall, only half of the usual new offerings will be premiering on the tube due to the typical development season being interrupted by the strike.

Also, since most new shows from last season didn't have a real chance with audiences, networks decided to give them a second shot this year to see if they could build an audience.

In short, this is going to be a very interesting fall season.

In recent years networks have been a little too quick on the trigger to kill off shows that weren't instant hits. There's just so much money at stake, and so much competition being offered by cable and the internet, networks just aren't willing to let a show grow over time. One of the most popular sitcoms of all time, "Cheers", did horribly in the ratings its first year. But, after an Emmy nomination its audience picked up during its second season and quickly escalated to one of the top shows on television.

Hopefully that same phenomenon will repeat for some really clever shows like "Chuck," "Pushing Daisies" or "Reaper" that all have been given reprieves for their less than stellar ratings due to the strike. And if they do, then perhaps networks will rethink the "hit out of the box" mentality that has ham stringed so many good shows the past few years.

Who says the writer's strike didn't accomplish anything?

~J. Spellman

The X-Files - I Want to Believe

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:44:00 +0000

On this side of the television screen...

I wanted to believe, but what will undoubtedly be the final chapter of "The X-Files" was a middling disappointment. If I were to rank this in the pantheon of episodes from the TV show, it would fall in the bottom third; plenty that were worse, but a whole heap that were way better. The X-File at the story's core was weakly conceived, developed and concluded. Except for a few notable exceptions, it looked like everyone involved was there to pick up a paycheck and that was it.

The film primarily focuses on the dwindling relationship between Fox Mulder and Dana Scully. In the six years since the conclusion of the series, when he was put on trial for all of his rabble-rousing, the two have been shacked up together, with Mulder leeching off of Scully's new found career as a proper doctor. And although they've been in a loving, committed relationship for six years, they still "endearingly" refer to each other by their last names. Huh?

Although there is a sort of neat plot about human organ traffickers trying to build a new body for a dying cancer patient by abducting healthy young girls with the same rare blood type, this is second fiddle to the reinvigoration of both Scully's and Mulder's beliefs; i.e. Scully's belief in herself and her medical skills, and Mulder's belief in mooching off of Scully. By the end of the movie the characters are right back to where they were at the beginning. Scully's still a doctor, and Mulder's still clipping out newspapers to wallpaper his room unabomber style.

During the nine year run of the series, it made sense to move the characters and plot very little each episode. Chris Carter did not own the series and had no idea how long it would run. Since his conspiracy ultimately wasn't as complicated as his sleight of hand indicated, the baby steps they would take week after week revealing it was a smart storytelling device. However, now that the show is over, it's okay to let the movie make huge leaps and tell a lot of story. We don't necessarily need big special effects like the first film delivered, but at the very least some sort of resolution, on some level, would be appreciated!

Also, their supposition that fans really wanted a relationship story rather than a real creepy horror story is dead wrong. When the series ended, Mulder and Scully had a child together and the last shot is them lying on a bed looking longingly into each other's eyes. Where was the ambiguity in that? We had gotten what we wanted on that front. So, instead of a new story, we get a rehash of their relationship, which in drama terms has a very minor conflict that's resolved simply.

The plot does not resolve so much as it stops. There's a lot of hullabaloo about a defrocked priest having a psychic connection to the case that prompts the SAC (Amanda Peet) to enlist Mulder due to his experience, but none of it amounts to anything. Mulder isn't really needed as the case is finally broken by hard evidence at the crime scene. So Mulder shows up, "believes" in this pedophile priest, only to stand around looking ineffectual (which he is). Finally, after discovering the evil doer's layer, the climactic showdown is settled by a few bumps to the head.

Only Gillian Anderson brings her A game to the film, infusing each scene with internal conflict and doubt. She transcends the bland writing by telling more of the story with her performance than was put on paper by Chirs Carter and Frank Spotnitz. Both David Duchovny and Carter seem to be looking past this project to their next, or the line at the bank standing between them and their new summer home.

There's an easter egg at the end of the credits that sums the whole affair up. After a series of helicopter shots that take us from the icy tundra to tropical waters, there's an overhead shot of the stars in a boat waving at us as if to say, "ha ha, we took your money, gave you a crappy story, and ran off to a fabulous vacation without you."

~J. Spellman

The X-Files - Oubilette

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:45:00 +0000

On this side of the television screen...

The eleventh article in a series exploring the best monster of the week episodes of "The X-Files" leading up to the premiere of the new movie July 25th.

Although it was an integral part of the series grander mythology of Alien invasion, the childhood abduction of Agent Mulder was the driving force behind his obsession with the paranormal. The lowdown on that is when Mulder and his sister were just children, she was abducted by what he perceived as aliens. From that moment on, his personal quest has been to discover the truth behind that night.

It's this incident that also informs Mulder's connection to the kidnapping in the third season episode, "Oubilette." A fifteen year-old girl is abducted by an unseen assailant. What's strange about the case is that a waitress across town collapses at the exact same moment after muttering the exact same words as the abductor. Is she an accomplice, or a former victim? Or, does she possess a psychic link to the killer that Mulder can exploit to save the child?

During the initial investigation, Mulder visits the mother of the abducted child and offers his condolences. Distraught, she rebukes his kindness by telling him that he couldn't possibly understand how it is she's feeling. This scene is steeped in irony. First, Mulder obviously does know how the woman feels, having lost his young sitster. The irony is even deeper in the fact that Mulder does not mention this. His character is famous for not holding his tongue about his theories and experiences, even when such talk can damage his career or reputation. Mulder is so steadfast in his beliefs that he never shies away from sharing them. However, he does here.

Primarily, he understands the woman's pain and knows that his experiences will not comfort the woman. All that will is the return of her little girl. He knows this, as that is all that will comfort him. More than twenty years after the fact, his wounds are still open and bleeding. When Scully confronts him with the fact that he's relating this case too much to his sisters, he responds that "...not everything I do, say, think, and feel goes back to my sister." However this just speaks to Mulder's complicated character, saying one thing and then doing the exact opposite.

Mulder relates to the waitress, a damaged individual who has the chance to do good. Through her and her connection to the paranormal, Mulder sees himself. Metaphorically, if this woman can save the little girl, then maybe Mulder has one at saving his sister. Saving this girl won't close Mulder's wounds, but it may make them easier to bear.

~J. Spellman

Box Office Expectations

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:15:00 +0000

On the other side of the screen...

Although it is quite obvious that I am a fan of "The X-Files," make no mistake about my expectations for this weekend's box office potential. Second place is the highest goal it can hope for.

The fact of the matter is that "The Dark Knight" is a juggernaut right now. It owns the box office this week and will again next. $158 million is a massive number to throw up on the scoreboard. If the film has even a 75% drop-off (which it shouldn't since the word of mouth is stellar on it and many folks are planning second trips to see it in IMAX) it would gross around $40 million, which is about five million more than "The X-Files" can hope to achieve. But, in reality, "The Dark Knight" will only drop off by about 50%, meaning it will crush all the competition yet again.

FOX's core mistake was releasing this movie in the summer. It's not a summer movie. It would have faired much better in the fall, at Halloween time, when people are anxious to be told a spooky campfire tale. Summer is for explosions, not for things going bump in the night.

Don't get me wrong, I'll still be there opening night to revel in the return of Mulder and Scully to the screen. But, I'm not hopeful for its financial performance, and therefore I have to watch it with an eye towards it being the franchise's swan song. It just doesn't have the potential to earn enough to justify another sequel, as sad as that makes me to admit.

~J. Spellman

The X-Files - Irresistable

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:24:00 +0000

On this side of the television screen...

The tenth article in a series exploring the best monster of the week episodes of "The X-Files" leading up to the premiere of the new movie July 25th.

Serial killers were the monsters, and therefore de-facto bad guys, of the nineties. After Hannibal Lecter rocketed to infamy in "The Silence of the Lambs," we were looking cross-eyed at our neighbors to see if anything funny was going on behind their eyes. Yes, although they were very nice people, they were still suspects because every neighbor of a caught serial killer described the person as "the nicest person. I never would have guessed he could do something like that." The nation was terrified of them.

During that time there were good killers depicted on screen and there were bad ones. The key to a good killer is half conception and half performance. Nick Chinlund who plays the serial killer Danny Pfaster in the second season episode "Irresistable" is so good at his half, he more than makes up for the run of the mill conception of the character.

Pfaster is a collector, collecting trophies from his victims, in this case hair and fingernails. This is a well worn device for killers. Nothing about the writing of this particular killer is remarkable. But, the way Chinlund inflects his dialogue, even the mundane lines are unnerving. He embodies obsession.

What's also remarkable about this episode is that it doesn't shy away from the obvious issue of Scully being a woman in an historically man's line of work. This is put into stark relief when Scully herself is abducted by Pfaster who intends to add her to his collection.

Even more terrifying is that Scully was involved in an alien abduction only a few short months ago. Through her ordeal with Pfaster, she continually must relive the experience, often seeing Pfaster as one of the grey skinned aliens responsible for her earlier abduction.

From what little is known about the upcoming movie, this episode seems to be a good primer for the type of story they will be telling. We're down to only five more days, and I for one can't be excited enough!

~J. Spellman

The X-Files - The Unnatural

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:27:00 +0000

On this side of the television screen...

The ninth article in a series exploring the best monster of the week episodes of "The X-Files" leading up to the premiere of the new movie July 25th.

Science Fiction is typically at its zenith when it is able to comment on society through the context of a fantastic story. Such was the case with the sixth season episode entitled, "The Unnatural."

Taking a bit of a breather from chasing ghouls and goblins, David Duchovny writes and directs the recounting of a black baseball player in the 1940s who just wants to forget the racial tensions and play ball. Outperforming all of the other members of an all black league in the West, Roswell to be specific, Josh Exley (Jesse Martin) is destined to follow Jackie Robinson into the majors. Although, the notoriety may be more than Exley can bear. You see, Exley is really an alien masquerading as a human specifically so he can play baseball -- a game he's learned to love.

Foremost, this plot device brings the feelings associated with being a minority, i.e. fear, low self esteem, etc. to the white males who typically dominate a Sci-Fi show's viewing audience. It challenges them by using a device they are intimately familiar with, aliens, and using that as an inroad to discussing race relations in America.

But it also speaks towards a general feeling of alienation that we all feel, even those who are at the top of their game. Using baseball as a metaphor is a given, as it speaks to the industry of America to even those who have no interest in the sport. A baseball diamond is as integral to the popular culture zeitgeist as the belief in aliens, which is what makes the marriage of the two such a brilliant stroke.

The episode certainly isn't as scary as can be expected, but the show transcended the stereotype of its own origins well into the second season. Past the point of "One Breath" the show found a very comfortable spot of being able to serve up horror, action, comedy and even drama whenever it fit the story.

~J. Spellman

The X-Files - Darkness Falls

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:12:00 +0000

On this side of the television screen...

The eighth article in a series exploring the best monster of the week episodes of "The X-Files" leading up to the premiere of the new movie July 25th.

As I noted in my initial posting on this series, my first experience with "The X-Files" was "Darkness Falls." Whereas it's not the strongest of episodes, it does some things remarkably well.

For a show that's steeped in Alien abductions, mystical terrors, and paranormal experiences, it also had a deep respect for the natural world and its undiscovered oddities. I adored the conceit that there are scientifically quantifiable dangers in the world that can rear up and attack just as easily as the unexplainable.

What's great about this example is the producers' willingness to reach out to all corners of the horror world and the different things that collectively care us. Truth be told, not every horror element is scary to all people. A person of deep faith and conviction will be far more frightened of demonic stories than an atheist.

The agents are called in to investigate the disappearance of a logging team in Washington. Once there they discover that the team had been illegally chopping down trees that were a thousand years old. Unwittingly, they also release an ancient insect that cocoons and kills other animals, even humans.

As I said before, the hook for me was how this episode ends. The agents don't outwit the ancient bugs and destroy them. Quite the contrary, they fall victim to them and are saved in the nick of time by national guardsmen. The episode ends with the two in quarantine recovering from their wounds. They don't defeat the threat, which makes the threat that much more terrifying.

Voodoo, demons and the occult are good and scary, but the natural world still holds plenty of secrets that can still work us over pretty good. I'm glad that "The X-Files" acknowledged that very early on in the show's run.

~J. Spellman

The X-Files - Roadrunners

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:54:00 +0000

On this side of the television screen...

The seventh article in a series exploring the best monster of the week episodes of "The X-Files" leading up to the premiere of the new movie July 25th.

At the time, there was a hideous uproar over series's star David Duchovny taking a step back from his regular duties on the show to only star in 13 episodes. After all, Fox Mulder was the core of the show, core of the central mythology, and very popular with fans. How could they proceed without him?

Series creator and show runner Chris Carter devised a way to explain his absence (Mulder was abducted at the end of season seven), and brought on a new character to fill the void, John Doggett (Robert Patrick). After seven seasons of investigating the paranormal, it strained credibility that Scully was still insistent that logical explanations could be applied to all of the events she'd witnessed. Therefore, her role segued into that of the believer and Doggett took on the role of doggedly (get it?) pursuing rational solutions. A new offshoot of the main alien conspiracy was devised to give Doggett a more personal pursuit that fit better with his military background.

Fans balked at this change, vocally yearning for the return of their favorite FBI malcontent. Although at the time I was certainly one of those, upon re-examination of the eighth and ninth seasons I've found plenty of gems as well a very well handled character arc for Doggett. By losing Mulder and his sometimes annoying "know-it-all-ness" the monster of the week episodes gained back their edge.

"Roadrunners" is a very frightening episode that both explored Scully's feelings of loss for Mulder, but also allowed her and Doggett to form the beginnings of a bonding partnership. Spurning Doggett's assistance, Scully bravely flies out to Utah alone to investigate the strange death of a hitchhiker. There, her car breaks down near a very small settlement who is quick to offer lodgings, but reluctant to allow her to leave. She soon discovers why when the town's people try to use her as a human host for their slug-like deity.

There are two terrifying sequences in this episode which are painfully reminiscent of "Home." The first is only halfway through the episode when Scully is tied to a bed, surrounded by very creepy rednecks, screaming that she's pregnant and to not hurt her or her child. The writer (Vince Gilligan) artfully plays on our expectations that he would never allow something horrendous to happen to a pregnant woman, and then goes ahead and does it anyway!

Later, after the critter has nested under Scully's skin along her spine, Dogget has to surgically remove it on a nasty old bus with the faithful followers beating on the windows outside.

At the episode's outset, it's very evident that Scully is trying to "soldier on" like Mulder would have wanted her to, but finds that she can't do it alone and will need Doggett's help. It all echoes back to the very beginning of the series when Mulder was reluctant to have a partner whom he thought would just get in his way, but learns that having one is actually a benefit.

The season's main theme is also the search for Mulder, and Scully has to, at least thematically, get into his head to be able to understand what might have happened to him. Only by retracing his steps through the first season, and experiencing the same deep desire to discover where he's gone -- which mirrors Mulder's search for answers regarding his abducted sister -- will she be able to find him and complete herself.

And did I mention the episode is really scary?

~J. Spellman

The X-Files - Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose/Tithonus

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:37:00 +0000

On this side of the televisions screen...

The sixth article in a series exploring the best monster of the week episodes of "The X-Files" leading up to the premiere of the new movie July 25th.

"The X-Files" was famous for its long, unwieldy conspiracy involving aliens and the eventual end of civilization. These episodes were interconnected and required faithful viewership to fully understand. However, the weekly monster mashes also had some continuity behind them to reward the devoted viewers as well. There were straight sequel stories, such as "Squeeze" and "Tooms" that offered closure to storylines, and then there were little jewels peppered in across seasons that enticed the audience with exciting possibilities.

Across the gulf of three seasons, just such a connection is made between two otherwise unrelated episodes, "Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose" and "Tithonus."

Clyde Bruckman (the late Peter Boyle) is a life insurance salesman with the psychic ability to foretell a person's death. This comes in handy when Mulder and Scully are investigating the case of a serial killer specifically targeting psychics. The episode itself is a gem, and ranked number ten in a 1997 TV Guide list of the greatest Television episodes of all time. Boyle's dry performance is priceless, and well worth the Emmy award he received for it.

Towards the end of the episode Mr. Bruckman gives agent Scully some very shocking news. After correctly predicting the deaths of several agents, as well as comically predicting Mulder's due to auto-erotic asphyxiation, Scully finally breaks down and asks how she dies; with wide, earnest eyes, Bruckman quizzically responds, "You don't!"

That proclamation is very creepy in and of itself, but could very easily be dismissed as an old man's game, or perhaps he just didn't want to tell her the truth. However, in the sixth season Scully is on a case that bears out the meaning of that phrase.

Called to New York to look into the possibility that a crime scene photographer, who always arrives at the scene before police officers, may in fact be the killer, Scully discovers that Alfred Fellig (Geoffrey Lewis) has another secret altogether. Fellig was, actually, well over a century old.

As he tells it, while sick in the hospital he actually saw death coming for him, and turned away from it. Death took the person in the bed next to him instead, never to visit him again, and ever since he's been chasing death hoping to have it finally take him and end his too-long life. Ultimately, Scully is shot and death comes for her, but Fellig convinces her to turn away from it and it finally takes him in her place. She lives. Presumably, Scully is now left with the same curse as Felling -- immortality.

Intriguing as this notion may be, the series did not return to it in its remaining three seasons. No further explanation was ever given, so by the show's own internal logic Dana Scully cannot die until she convinces death to take her instead of someone else.

Perhaps this is something Chris Carter is saving for the eventual endgame showdown between man and alien in 2012, or perhaps it's just a sloppy loose end they forgot to get around to before the series' close. Either way, it's an open ended element to the grander story I think rewards long-time fans with rich possibilities.

~J. Spellman

The X-Files - Chinga

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:55:00 +0000

On this side of the television screen...

The fifth article in a series exploring the best monster of the week episodes of "The X-Files" leading up to the premiere of the new movie July 25th.

In his semi-regular column in Entertainment Weekly, Stephen King recently expressed doubts whether the new "X-Files" film will actually be scary or not. As a longtime fan of the author's work (although the last decade's output has paled in comparison to his earlier novels), I found this article disappointing. Especially considering he himself turned in a nifty little episode ten years ago entitled "Chinga."

At the time, many other fans I knew were worried that his particular brand of horror wouldn't mesh well with the ebb and flow of the series. I disagreed with them because I've always thought King was at his best in short stories. All that was required was a little faith that he could do the same perfunctory spookiness with an episode of "The X-Files."

He delivered a very creepy story involving a demonic doll in the hands of an autistic child, which is familiar territory for him. Creepy kids are King's bread and butter dating all the way back to "Carrie." But, with an able assist from series creator Chris Carter, the episode strikes the right balance between King's shenanigans and Carter's tomfoolery.

The story opens with a brutal scene where an entire store of customers begin clawing their own eyes out for no apparent reason -- very, very Stephen King. Scully arrives and quickly discovers that one customer does not, and quickly leaves the scene. Although the agent is on vacation, she gets caught up in this case of a mother terrified to anger her little girl whose doll can dole out deadly consequences. The only warning is the toy's rusty old voice box intoning, "I want to play."

Admittedly, the episode isn't one of the very best, it falls safely in the middle of the pack. But there are some very keen moments occurring here and there that effectively shivers the spine. It also has some very nice exchanges between Mulder and Scully. What makes it unique is its involvement by Mr. King who is unquestionably the preeminent name in modern horror.

I just wish King would have as much faith in the new movie as I showed him way back when. Whereas I understand his point that big stories tend to not be as scary as the smaller ones, I still think it's wrong to pre-judge a film before you see it.

~J. Spellman

The X-Files - Home

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:03:00 +0000

On this side of the television screen...

The fourth article in a series exploring the best monster of the week episodes of "The X-Files" leading up to the premiere of the new movie July 25th.

Let's face it, the best reason to watch "The X-Files" is to curl up on the couch with a big blanket over top of you with your favorite snack and beverage, prepared to get good and scared. There's no better place to find that than on the the second episode of the fourth season, "Home."

I remember watching this episode when it first aired in October of 1996, and believe you me it was horrifically terrifying. I remember asking myself aloud, since my wife had quickly left the room for this one, "how did they get this one on the air?" Apparently, I wasn't the only one. I don't know if it was viewer complaints that prompted it, or if the network big wigs were as freaked out as the rest of us by it, but after its premiere FOX refused to re-air this episode, relenting only once for Halloween in 1999, but labeling it TV-MA, the only episode of the show to ever reach that nadir. Which I think is a testament to the episode's quality.

Whereas normally the show drew inspiration from the likes of "Twilight Zone," "The Magician," or "Night Stalker;" this episode can trace its bloodline right back to the best terror flicks of the 70s, most prominently "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." From that film the writers Glen Morgan and James Wong borrow the rural setting and deranged family, not to mention the grotesque shocks and persistent screaming -- all arranged in perfect order to alternately unnerve and unhinge the audience.

In a small Pennsylvania town, appropriately named Home, Mulder and Scully autopsy a newborn found buried in a shallow grave. This is a huge shock to the community, which is so idyllic that its sheriff is literally named Andy Taylor. Suspicion quickly turns to the one blight on this town, the reclusive family who lives in their family home which dates back to the Civil War. What transpires next is too deliciously diabolical to even remotely spoil.

Had this episode been rated by the MPAA, it would certainly have garnered an R rating. It features brutal violence and deals in some very disturbing, very adult themes. Which, admittedly, is part and parcel to its brilliance.

Just as remarkable is that the family at the episode's core does have a logic and reasoning that although cannot be condoned by modern standards, does have a firm basis. You believe that these people would act this way. They are not monsters for the sake of being monsters. An aspect of "The X-Files" that resonates. Whereas shock is a major component of scares, understanding and familiarity help to make fear resonate. Scares are sudden whereas fear lingers.

"Home" lingers in your psyche long after you watch it. It keeps you up at night. And that's a what a good horror story should do.

~J. Spellman

P.S. As a die-hard high def fan, this makes me very, very happy.

The X-Files - Bad Blood

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:30:00 +0000

On this side of the television screen...

The third article in a series exploring the best monster of the week episodes of "The X-Files" leading up to the premiere of the new movie July 25th.

What really elevated "The X-Files" above that of other procedurals was certainly the dynamic between its two lead characters. Primarily, there was the difference between Scully's dogged adherence to science in the face of Mulder's insistence a paranormal explanation always holds true. Ingeniously twisting it even further, that was played against Scully's seemingly contradictory faith in God and Mulder's resignation to the pursuits and evil of men. Those very believable contradictions are what made both characters so wonderfully complicated and rich.

But, the most obvious difference wasn't played up as much, that of man and woman. The fifth season episode "Bad Blood" did just that, by replaying through each characters' unique point of view a series of bizarre events that lead up to Mulder staking a teenager through the heart.

It all begins with an intriguing incident where Mulder chases a teenager, who's crying for help, only to find out the vampire teeth the kid bared were plastic after Mulder stakes him through the heart. Mulder, it would seem, is guilty of murder.

The solution to this mystery unravels through Mulder and Scully each telling their very different version of events. Scully remembers the town's sheriff (Luke Wilson) as being handsome and charming, whereas Mulder recalls him being dopey and buck-toothed. Scully recounts Mulder's initial debriefing he's bubbly and too enthusiastic, but Mulder seems to think that Scully was whiny and confrontational.

The episode is classic "He said, she said" with the requisite paranormal take. It not only plays with the gender differences, but has a lot of fun with the perceived nature of each character. If anything, it details many of the characters' idiosyncrasies and blows them up to ridiculous proportions. So, yes, it is a comedic episode.

What's best is the final act, which revisits the town only to show that between the two versions lied the actual truth. However, by visiting the different perspectives, no matter how comically, we get a better understanding of Mulder and Scully's world view; a brilliant technique.

It's also brilliant Sci-Fi. The best science fiction explores our own humanity -- our foibles and flaws -- while telling a fantastical story. That's precisely what writer Vince Gilligan delivers here. An exploration of our petty jealousies, male/female relationships and belief systems wrapped in an entertaining vampire yarn.

~J. Spellman

The X-Files - Small Potatoes

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:16:00 +0000

On this side of the television screen...

The second article in a series exploring the best monster of the week episodes of "The X-Files" leading up to the premiere of the new movie July 25th.

Towards the end of the second season, an episode of "The X-Files" entitled "Humbug" discovered that the show could have a sense of humor about itself. Sure, the show was famous for its scares and bumps in the night, but here was an episode that dealt with the macabre and grotesque with its tongue firmly in cheek.

The writer of that episode, Darin Morgan, was subsequently cast in the season 4 episode, "Small Potatoes," as Eddie Van Blundht (the 'h' is silent), a former sideshow freak with the unique ability to change his musculature to perfectly imitate the appearance of other people.

The case comes to light when several children are all born with extended tail bones. All of the mothers were patients of the same fertility clinic save one, who swears the father of her child is Luke Skywalker. Yeah, the character from "Star Wars."

Despite its playful spirit the episode still manages to find danger and tension, although in unsuspected ways. As Mr. Van Blundht manages to escape capture again and again by imitating others, he eventually subdues Agent Mulder, imitates his appearance and goes back to Washington, D.C. with one singular purpose in mind -- to bed Dana Scully.

Playing off of the sexual tension that had been building for four seasons, the episode's writer, Vince Gilligan, manages to give the fans what they want, a romantic scene starring David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson, but not between the characters of Fox Mulder and Dana Scully. The audience is torn between wanting to see a first kiss between the two, but hoping and praying that it doesn't happen since Mulder is not really Mulder. It's the best kind of comedic tension and conflict.

David Duchovny was also given the opportunity to play a parody of the character he'd been creating for the better part of four years. Although the character of Fox Mulder dresses in suits, brandishes a badge, and has movie star good looks -- he's always been portrayed as a nerd with no life. This point is driven home when the fat, dreary character of Eddie, who has to physically transform himself into other people to be liked, bemuses to Mulder that, "I was born a loser, but you're one by choice."

"The X-Files" was famous for having direct sequels to its episodes across seasons, as well as reintroducing characters in different situations. Although it's not a direct sequel to "Humbug," this episode is certainly a thematic sequel in that it deals with grotesques who appear in freak shows and how we as a society react to those people.

By allowing the show to not take itself too seriously, the writers and producers enabled it to vary its formula and stay fresh for its viewers. Not only could they surprise viewers with their plots, but also its tone. It was a huge leap for television to realize that about its shows.

~J. Spellman

The X-Files - Signs & Wonders

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:55:00 +0000

On this side of the television screen...

The first article in a series exploring the best monster of the week episodes of "The X-Files" leading up to the premiere of the new movie July 25th.

Snakes, by and large (or small) freak me out. I hate them. I have nightmares about them. I was once held hostage in my home because a snake had decided to sun itself on the walkway outside my front door. I really don't like them.

Handling serpents as part of church services intrigues me though. Perhaps it's precisely because of my paralyzing fear of the animals that I find the subject fascinating. I'm both awed and terrified by it.

The seventh season episode of "The X-Files" entitled 'Signs & Wonders' drops FBI agents Mulder and Scully smack dab in the middle of the Appalachian mountains on a case involving charismatic snake handlers. Charismatic worshipers do so by engaging in revivals with spirited music, speaking in tongues, etc. Adding snakes to the mix is based on the Bible passage Mark 16:17-18, which states that followers of Christ, "...shall take up serpents..."

The case itself involves a murder perpetrated by using snakes as a weapon. Naturally, suspicion falls on the local church of snake handlers, and its pastor, because the victim was an ex-member of the church. At first glance it seems like a killing of retribution. By the time all secrets are revealed, the truth is entirely different, and far more frightening.

The writer of the episode, Jeffrey Bell, smartly plays against our prejudices and stereotypes in which we automatically assume a person who handles snakes during services must be the "bad guy." In fact, he's relying on people just such as me to react negatively towards anyone who would integrate animals we find wholly distasteful with church services. Like great fiction should do, our ideas of right and wrong, good and bad, are challenged and we are asked to look at the world a little differently. In the end our prejudices are proven false, and that's the twist that makes this episode so fascinating.

Besides that, it's also got some great moments to make you squirm in your seat, especially if you suffer from ophidiophobia. Scully's face is pushed down on the cage of a rattle snake and Mulder is struck in the face by a far too realistic looking effect (or was it?).

This episode does what "The X-Files" does best. It both stimulates the mind and shivers the spine. It's precisely the model to which I hope the new movie adheres.

~J. Spellman

The Truth is Still Out There

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:51:00 +0000

On this side of the television screen...

"The X-Files" stands to this day as my favorite televisions series. Nothing before it or since has rivaled the production value and intelligence that was poured into that show week after week. Without it, there would be no "Lost" or "Battlestar Galactica."

The second movie launched from the series opens at the end of this month, and I am understandably giddy with excitement. The first film was just successful enough to warrant a sequel, but legal issues over royalties held the film up for a few years.

Whereas the first film dealt with the convoluted "mythology" about an impending alien invasion (which I do understand and can explain it all if you really want me to). Since that plot was essentially wrapped up in the series finale, and really does require a volume of Cliff's Notes to understand, Chris Carter and Frank Spotnitz decided to make this movie a standalone story, which was really the series strong suit anyway.

These episodes were the bread and butter of the show. You didn't have to know anything about the conspiracy to enjoy these episodes. All you needed to know was that the FBI has a special division to investigate the paranormal, and these episodes were one of their cases. Simple, to the point, and devilishly wonderful.

I did not watch the show from day one. It was something I had heard about, and thought sounded intriguing, but did not watch because it aired on Friday nights. As I was twenty when the show premiered, I was typically busy on Friday nights. But, I distinctly remember the first episode I did watch. It was called "Darkness Falls" about ancient insects awakened when over eager loggers cut down the wrong trees, and it immediately caught my attention for its stunning conclusion. Without telling you what that is, in case you haven't seen it, it's the antithesis to how cop shows should end. They didn't wind up "back at the station" laughing over a cup of coffee. No, it was much darker.

And that's what hooked me.

From that moment on I made a point to record each and every episode on my VCR (remember those?)

So, with the impending release of the film, I thought it might be fun to go back and explore the great stand alone episodes. Each season, which includes the much maligned eighth and ninth seasons, had at least one classic bump in the night episode. The same type of story that the movie is emulating. I'll do them in no particular order, except for which one springs to mind that day. I've already got the first one in mind, and it's probably not the one you think...

~J. Spellman

SAG is Out-politicked by the AMPTP

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:49:00 +0000

On the other side of the screen...

After the bruising 100 day writer's strike earlier this year that cost California an estimated $2.5 billion, there's not a lot of support for a similar work stoppage by the Screen Actor's Guild. It's not that SAG's demands are outrageous, it's that the Producers have played a better game of painting the image that SAG is being unreasonable. They are simply out-politicking the actor's union.

SAG's insistence to not play this affair out in the press until now is the final PR mistake they've made in a long list of mistakes. The AMPTP has uniquely positioned itself to fend off the claims that their offer to the union is unfair through several months of targeted dealings.

The masterstroke of the producers' guild plan was splitting the two major actor unions from collectively bargaining together by reaching a tentative deal with AFTRA, who governs TV actors exclusively. As any political operative will tell you, party unity is key to winning public support. The AMPTP have divided with every intention of conquering.

Now, AFTRA and SAG have engaged in a war, lining up celebrities on either side to alternately defend the AFTRA deal or defame it. Now, with high profile celebrities such as Tom Hanks and Jack Nicholson "duking it out" in the public eye, AMPTP gets to slink out of the spotlight. If the public can't see them, they won't blame them.

But, the producers didn't stop there. Instead of allowing the writer's to return the favor of being supportive to their fellow artists' union like SAG was of them, producers have been quietly rolling back paydays for writers, forcing them to worry about their livelihood and to not speak up in solidarity with SAG.

That leaves SAG in a very precarious position regarding their contract negotiations and any leverage threats for a second work stoppage could create. They are isolated and alone with at least one sister union unwilling to speak on their behalf and another actively working against it. SAG will also find no friends in the American public who are weary of skyrocketing gas prices and just want their television shows to entertain them in their homes to avoid having to drive across town for alternative entertainment.

The producers have played this negotiation very, very smartly. I'd be extremely surprised if they don't get the better end of the deal this time around.

~J. Spellman

TV for Adults

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:57:00 +0000

On this side of the television screen...

For the better part of this decade, when normal TV schedules dry up for the summer I've been increasingly turning to DVD sets of TV shows I've either missed or didn't have access to over the last year to fill the void. And what a wonderful journey it has been.

Most recently I've caught up on two shows originally airing on Showtime -- a channel I don't feel the need to pay for -- "Weeds" and "Californication." It's not just that I don't want to afford the pay channel, I also enjoy watching shows in uninterrupted blocks. For each of these shows I was able to watch the whole seasons in two or three nights.

But, what I find most remarkable about these shows is that they deal with adult situations intelligently. To accomplish this they use foul language; they discuss sex; they have sex; the adults make mistakes parenting that aren't easily rectified within half an hour; and the mistakes have a lingering effect on the child's development and psyche.

These shows simply cannot exist on the outdated network television model. The broadcast networks must still pander to the idea that children might be watching and therefore must be protected from the "horrors" of adult life. Never mind that the FCC doesn't want children to see how people deal with real life issues they themselves will eventually handle but have no issue what-so-ever with children watching, often in intricate detail, the many ways a human can be murdered on shows such as CSI and Law and Order. The fact remains that adults want to watch shows that accurately reflect their own daily lives, and to get that they must turn to shows on the pay networks.

To me, this is the future of television. Although recent trends indicate a rebound for broadcast networks, there's still a mass migration to cable specifically for more adult programming. The reality is that audiences, like me, want to watch programs aimed at adults that aren't dumbed down to child acceptable standards.

I look forward to the day when adult programming is the norm on television rather than the exception. I'm just saddened that George Carlin won't be around to see the end of the seven dirty words.

~J. Spellman

Why "Star Wars" has ruined movies

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:21:00 +0000

On the other side of the screen...

Now, I love "Star Wars." Don't get me wrong. I grew up with it. I had the toys and the wallpaper and bedsheets and the underoos. It pretty much exists in the marrow of my bones. But it's so popular and so ubiquitous in the psyche of my generation that it is actually having a negative effect on movies today.

I know the standard argument leveled at the films is that they ushered in the age of the visual effects blockbuster that have been dumbing down movies for decades. I don't see that. My problem is that "Star Wars" has brainwashed a generation of filmmakers with the word "trilogy." Now it seems that every filmmaker starts a new film while thinking of it in terms of launching a trilogy. And this is where I feel movies are starting to go wrong.

Last night I rented the Blu-ray for "Jumper." It seemed like it would be a fun way to spend a rainy evening with my home theater. For the most part, it was. Except that the movie didn't have much of a plot or a story. It seemed like we were being set up for a big story with some real great drama; but, just as that story is introduced, a point where you expect the story to really take off and begin, the credits roll. I felt cheated.

So I started up the extras and sure enough, I hear the director, Doug Liman talk about how this is the first part of a planned trilogy.

I groaned.

What that man was telling me was that he took what is a simple story, and decided to break it up into three different movies just so he could have his trilogy. Trust me, this story isn't that deep and doesn't need that much time to get going. He needed to concentrate on making the first movie work, and in my opinion that meant telling me a whole story right now. The concept works great for one movie, not so much for three.

But, I can't really blame him. My generation is brainwashed with the idea of a trilogy. It's like they can't think in any other terms. They hatch an idea and immediately think of how to build three movies off of it, regardless of whether the story only lends itself to one or not.

The "Pirates of the Caribbean" films suffered from the same syndrome. The writers of those movies admitted that after the first film was a success, and they were hired to pen the sequels, they set out to "reverse engineer" a trilogy. Personally, I think they failed. Those two sequels were a narrative mess trying to fit in all this hokum about destiny. They should have just concentrated on spinning two more unrelated yarns with the same characters in tow. If ever there was a series that lent itself to serialization like Indiana Jones or James Bond, Captain Jack was it. But, no, they fell victim to the trilogy sickness.

I'm not saying that trilogies shouldn't be made. But, not every story lends itself to three films. Sometimes two is enough, and other times you may need seven (like Harry Potter). Or, in most cases one tightly structured story is all you need. I just really wish studios would realize that.

~J. Spellman

Performance Irony

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Thu, 29 May 2008 16:35:00 +0000

On this side of the television screen...

Irony is simply defined as when the literal meaning and the implied meaning are diametrically opposed to one another. I love pointing out irony in the world, it's so fun.

For instance, if you've ever spent any time lurking around TV show discussion boards, you're bound to run into commercial bashing. Not the pop-up ads that plague our shows, those are annoying -- but people that complain about the length and frequency of commercial breaks, specifically as it relates to cable. The logic is that since cable is paid for, why should we have to endure commercial breaks.

Here's what I find ironic, oftentimes you find the same people eagerly anticipating, downloading, sharing the latest promo for a show or movie they are anxiously waiting to see. These promos, are in fact, commercials.

In fact, recently the marketing company in charge of the new Batman film, "The Dark Knight" had a treasure hunt of sorts with the prize being the privilege to sit in a theater and watch the new trailer for the movie. That's right, people spent many hours running around a city, following clues to eventually watch a commercial for a movie.

It would seem commercials for products they enjoy are good, advertisements for ones they don't enjoy are bad.

Like I said, irony.

~J. Spellman

The TV Upfronts

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Mon, 12 May 2008 15:41:00 +0000

On the other side of the screen...

The TV upfronts are usually where the networks announce to advertisers their new schedules for the fall season, and then make a bunch of deals selling off the commercial time for those shows.

I say "usually" because it's going to be a bit different this year. Due to the writer's strike, most networks are considering next year a "do over." Just like that staple of neighborhood sandlots where scoring disputes are settled by doing it over, the networks are relaunching many of last year's new shows, which means there are very few new series debuting in the fall.

So unlike in previous years, the presentations to advertisers will be far more low-key. In fact, NBC announced not only their fall slate prior to the upfronts, they announced their plans for the fall, winter and summer schedules already.

Whereas this is typically a fun week where we get to revel in the promises of new shows, this will be a rather anticlimactic week in the world of television.

~J. Spellman

Thankfully there are no disco clubs in space

noreply@blogger.com (Ash Eldifrawi) — Fri, 02 May 2008 14:51:00 +0000

On this side of the television screen...

If you haven't already, now is the best time to buy, rent or steal the first few seasons of Sci-Fi network's "Battlestar Galactica" on DVD so you can catch up. It's in its final season, and unlike other shows that keep going until they have no more story left to tell (I'm looking at you Smallville), BSG is going out right.

Now, I know your knee jerk reaction is that not only is it science fiction, isn't BSG that silly show from the seventies with Dirk Benedict's perfect hair? The one where they regularly visited alien casinos and disco clubs in space?

Yes, it is a remake of that show -- but it's far, far smarter than its predecessor. Whereas that show was an adventure show in space primarily to cash in on the success of "Star Wars," the remake is REAL science fiction. The show uses their other-worldly premise to dig deep into the social issues of our time including terrorism, war, media-hype; as well as eternal themes such as questions of the true nature of humanity.

It's simply genius. Even if you don't like science fiction, the characters are real and intense. It's military drama has appeal long beyond it's talk of jump drives and other made up technologies.

It airs at 10:00 on Friday nights.

~J. Spellman