The show: The L-Word
The episodes: "Let's Get This Party Started" and "Looking at You, Kid," two consecutive episodes from Season 5, now available on DVD.
What happened: Alice is invited to a super-secret party for Hollywood homosexuals. It's so secretive, Alice says guests have to sign confidentiality agreements. Alice goes with Tasha, who apparently feels comfortable enough about going to this party without giving more evidence to the U. S. Army that she's gay. Inside, Tasha identifies a famous basketball player, dancing with a man. Alice surreptitiously shoots video on her cell phone of the two men dancing.
In the next episode, the famous basketball player makes it very clear that he's not gay and will not tolerate gays on his team. Alice decides to out him by podcasting the video she shot. Alice's podcast goes viral, forcing the famous basketball player to admit to his hypocrisy, but also causing Tasha to confront Alice over her double-standard: outing a basketball player but trying to not out a soldier (Tasha).
Where is the other shoe: So I've watched the whole season except for the season finale, and I haven't seen anyone call Alice on her breach of contract. Did she not sign the contract? And with all the information that the She-bar owner is digging up on Shane on her friends (such as the fact that Jenny's film production team didn't get permits to shoot in the neighborhood, or that Ivan Aycock has a 51% stake in Kit's bar) how could she miss that Alice so clearly and publically breached her contract?
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Was electing Obama enough to atone for America's racist past?
The show: Boston Legal
The episode: "Thanksgiving," first aired November 24, 2008, the Monday before Thanksgiving 2008 on ABC.
What happened: Shirley Schmidt (Candice Bergen) invites several white attorneys to her home for Thanksgiving dinner. Edwin Poole (Larry Miller) brings his black foster child over. The issue of racism comes up during the conversation, and Alan Shore (James Spader) accuses the firm Crane, Poole & Schmidt of being systematically racist, and points out that with the exception of Edwin's foster kid, everyone at the table is white. Shirley counters that most of the lawyers at the firm voted for Barack Obama, to which Alan replies that there is no way to verify that because of ballot secrecy, and he scoffs at the idea that electing a Black man is enough to purify America of its racist past.
Musings: Just as Phil Farrand sometimes ruminates rather than nitpicks Star Trek episodes, so too will I occasionally ponder in this space larger issues raised by the episode. I don't have nits for this episode; all the discrepancies can be explained by nuances in a character's political position (it would also benefit real-life people to have nuances to their political positions, too).
At the end of last week's episode, "Kill, Baby, Kill," Alan spoke on the balcony of how wondrous was the night Obama was elected President, and how he didn't want that night to end. (By the way, doesn't it seem like for most newscasters January 20 just can't come fast enough? I don't remember there being a lot of fuss over President-elect Bill Clinton back in November 1992.) That was the episode in which he represented a woman (Cheri Oteri) who was allegedly fired from her job because she voted for John McCain. In the courtroom, Alan eloquently defended ballot secrecy. How do Alan's statements in the previous episode fit in with his statements in this episode? Alan can deem Obama's election "wondrous" but at the same time think it insufficient to atone for America's racist past. The mere election of Obama might not be enough to change the apalling statistics on African Americans (some of which Alan cites) though of course one hopes that when Obama takes office he will be able to turn at least some of those statistics around. As for ballot secrecy, a lawyer defending it in court doesn't necessarily mean that the lawyer personally believes in it. We accord more weight to Alan's statements on the balcony because they are directed to his best friend, Denny Crane (William Shatner).
Not a nit: David E. Kelley does like to recycle his actors for different characters, but occasionaly he brings back an actor to play the same character as before, and sometimes an actor does both (such as Anthony Heald, who played the same California judge transplanted to "Massa-tchu-setts" in both The Practice and Boston Legal as well as a high school principal in Boston Public). John Larroquette, who is now Carl Sack on Boston Legal, played a murderer named Joey Heric in The Practice. Heric was a recurring character who appeared in six episodes from 1997 to 2002. James Spader also appeared on The Practice, there also as Alan Shore. Alan Shore's first episode was "We the People," which first aired in 2003; meaning that there are no episodes of The Practice with both Joey Heric and Alan Shore. Because if there were, it would certainly count as a nit if Alan failed to mention, however fleetingly, the resemblance that Carl bears to Joey, that man who got away with murder on several occasions.
The episode: "Thanksgiving," first aired November 24, 2008, the Monday before Thanksgiving 2008 on ABC.
What happened: Shirley Schmidt (Candice Bergen) invites several white attorneys to her home for Thanksgiving dinner. Edwin Poole (Larry Miller) brings his black foster child over. The issue of racism comes up during the conversation, and Alan Shore (James Spader) accuses the firm Crane, Poole & Schmidt of being systematically racist, and points out that with the exception of Edwin's foster kid, everyone at the table is white. Shirley counters that most of the lawyers at the firm voted for Barack Obama, to which Alan replies that there is no way to verify that because of ballot secrecy, and he scoffs at the idea that electing a Black man is enough to purify America of its racist past.
Musings: Just as Phil Farrand sometimes ruminates rather than nitpicks Star Trek episodes, so too will I occasionally ponder in this space larger issues raised by the episode. I don't have nits for this episode; all the discrepancies can be explained by nuances in a character's political position (it would also benefit real-life people to have nuances to their political positions, too).
At the end of last week's episode, "Kill, Baby, Kill," Alan spoke on the balcony of how wondrous was the night Obama was elected President, and how he didn't want that night to end. (By the way, doesn't it seem like for most newscasters January 20 just can't come fast enough? I don't remember there being a lot of fuss over President-elect Bill Clinton back in November 1992.) That was the episode in which he represented a woman (Cheri Oteri) who was allegedly fired from her job because she voted for John McCain. In the courtroom, Alan eloquently defended ballot secrecy. How do Alan's statements in the previous episode fit in with his statements in this episode? Alan can deem Obama's election "wondrous" but at the same time think it insufficient to atone for America's racist past. The mere election of Obama might not be enough to change the apalling statistics on African Americans (some of which Alan cites) though of course one hopes that when Obama takes office he will be able to turn at least some of those statistics around. As for ballot secrecy, a lawyer defending it in court doesn't necessarily mean that the lawyer personally believes in it. We accord more weight to Alan's statements on the balcony because they are directed to his best friend, Denny Crane (William Shatner).
Not a nit: David E. Kelley does like to recycle his actors for different characters, but occasionaly he brings back an actor to play the same character as before, and sometimes an actor does both (such as Anthony Heald, who played the same California judge transplanted to "Massa-tchu-setts" in both The Practice and Boston Legal as well as a high school principal in Boston Public). John Larroquette, who is now Carl Sack on Boston Legal, played a murderer named Joey Heric in The Practice. Heric was a recurring character who appeared in six episodes from 1997 to 2002. James Spader also appeared on The Practice, there also as Alan Shore. Alan Shore's first episode was "We the People," which first aired in 2003; meaning that there are no episodes of The Practice with both Joey Heric and Alan Shore. Because if there were, it would certainly count as a nit if Alan failed to mention, however fleetingly, the resemblance that Carl bears to Joey, that man who got away with murder on several occasions.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Where is Bugglesville?
The show: Bugtime Adventures, an animated show for Christian children. The show combines old Bible stories with newer fiction about a community of bugs who witness biblical milestones. As far as I can tell, the episodes follow neither historical chronology nor Bible book order.
The episode: "A Giant Problem." This episode is available on DVD, but if you get the Trinity Broadcasting Network in your area, you could catch it on a Saturday morning. I don't know when this episode first aired, the IMDB had very little information on this show when I checked it.
What happened: Without realizing it, the Philistine giant Goliath damages a dam near Bugglesville, flooding the town where the bugs reside and threatening their lives. Golliath is more interested in the Israelites, taunting them to send a single soldier to fight him. The young David is the only one courageous enough to face Goliath. An ant and a bee witness the boy David declaring to King Saul that he will fight Goliath. This inspires the ant with the courage to go to the dam and fix the leak.
What the problem is: That the location of Bugglesville is being constantly changed for each episode. We accept that these bugs have fewer arms and eyes than the bugs God actually created, or else some of the children would be too scared to watch the show. We accept that these diverse bugs live in one community together, where in real life they'd have their own communities (e.g., ants with ants, bees with bees). We also accept that these bugs have incredible longevity: they were around during the exodus of the Israelites out of Hebrew, and the same bugs were around to witness the birth of Jesus. But to accept that their town is constantly moving is one thing too many to accept.
I talked it over with Lisa, and she agreed that to nitpick this show, the Bible may be used. As to which version I may use, she left it to me, stipulating only that it has to be in English; so I chose the King James Version. The David vs. Goliath incident, the Bible tells us, happened in Socoh, in the Vale of Terabinth, and Bugglesville has to be within short-range flying distance for a bee carrying an ant. In the episode "What's a Manna with You?", Bugglesville is located somewhere along the Exodus route. The episode "Joy to the World" is the only one to explicitly show the relocation of the town as the bugs follow Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. But in all other episodes, Bugglesville just happens to be close to whatever big biblical event is taking place.
The faults with the Bible story are far fewer and most of the discrepancies between the text and the show can be attributed to translation differences. The way that Goliath taunts the Israelites differs in wording but is essentially the same in meaning, scarcely needing comment. One discrepancy I do want to comment on is the matter of David rejecting Saul's armor. 1 Samuel 17:38 says "And Saul armed David with his armour," but in the show we just suddenly see David with Saul's armor. The next verse reads: "And David girded his sword upon his armour, and he assayed to go; for he had not proved it. And David said unto Saul, I cannot go with these; for I have not proved them. And David put them off him." In the show, David is by himself, standing outside Saul's tent, when he casts off Saul's armor and declares he'll face Goliath "dressed as a shepherd." I think this detail is important to understand the later relationship between Saul and David (though the show does not cover this).
The episode: "A Giant Problem." This episode is available on DVD, but if you get the Trinity Broadcasting Network in your area, you could catch it on a Saturday morning. I don't know when this episode first aired, the IMDB had very little information on this show when I checked it.
What happened: Without realizing it, the Philistine giant Goliath damages a dam near Bugglesville, flooding the town where the bugs reside and threatening their lives. Golliath is more interested in the Israelites, taunting them to send a single soldier to fight him. The young David is the only one courageous enough to face Goliath. An ant and a bee witness the boy David declaring to King Saul that he will fight Goliath. This inspires the ant with the courage to go to the dam and fix the leak.
What the problem is: That the location of Bugglesville is being constantly changed for each episode. We accept that these bugs have fewer arms and eyes than the bugs God actually created, or else some of the children would be too scared to watch the show. We accept that these diverse bugs live in one community together, where in real life they'd have their own communities (e.g., ants with ants, bees with bees). We also accept that these bugs have incredible longevity: they were around during the exodus of the Israelites out of Hebrew, and the same bugs were around to witness the birth of Jesus. But to accept that their town is constantly moving is one thing too many to accept.
I talked it over with Lisa, and she agreed that to nitpick this show, the Bible may be used. As to which version I may use, she left it to me, stipulating only that it has to be in English; so I chose the King James Version. The David vs. Goliath incident, the Bible tells us, happened in Socoh, in the Vale of Terabinth, and Bugglesville has to be within short-range flying distance for a bee carrying an ant. In the episode "What's a Manna with You?", Bugglesville is located somewhere along the Exodus route. The episode "Joy to the World" is the only one to explicitly show the relocation of the town as the bugs follow Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. But in all other episodes, Bugglesville just happens to be close to whatever big biblical event is taking place.
The faults with the Bible story are far fewer and most of the discrepancies between the text and the show can be attributed to translation differences. The way that Goliath taunts the Israelites differs in wording but is essentially the same in meaning, scarcely needing comment. One discrepancy I do want to comment on is the matter of David rejecting Saul's armor. 1 Samuel 17:38 says "And Saul armed David with his armour," but in the show we just suddenly see David with Saul's armor. The next verse reads: "And David girded his sword upon his armour, and he assayed to go; for he had not proved it. And David said unto Saul, I cannot go with these; for I have not proved them. And David put them off him." In the show, David is by himself, standing outside Saul's tent, when he casts off Saul's armor and declares he'll face Goliath "dressed as a shepherd." I think this detail is important to understand the later relationship between Saul and David (though the show does not cover this).
Saturday, November 22, 2008
More blog team members needed
This blog needs more team members. If you watch movies and/or TV shows with at least some degree of criticality, you qualify to write for this blog. If you want to join the team, just contact me, letting me know what kinds of movies you go see or what TV shows you watch regularly. You can post nits on anything you watch where you spot a mistake.
I'll briefly go over what sources a nitpicker can use in nitpicking. The most important source is, of course, the movie or episode itself. The most satisfying nits come directly from the movie or episode. In the case of TV shows, previous episodes are relevant for nitpicking newer episodes. If there are spinoffs (whether to movies or TV shows) these can come into play also. When a movie or TV show is an adaptation of a book (or part of a book), that book can be used for nitpicking only when there is good reason to believe that the producers of the video content tried to be as loyal as possible to the original text; otherwise one has to go on the assumption that the producers allowed themselves licenses beyond what would be strictly necessary for translating the material from the page to the screen (that is, not just compressing action and removing the less important characters and scenes from the book, but also inventing characters and scenes not in the book and making other changes along those lines). Needless to say, novelizations of movies and TV shows are not valid for nitpicking their originals.
The second most important source is your own commonsense. For after all, contradicting our commonsense without even attempting to give an explanation is one of the most important ways that a fictional story can break the suspension of disbelief. Some plot twists rely on contradicting our commonsense for their shock value, but after the shock subsides, some explanation is usually offered (for example, in lawyer shows when the real culprit is revealed and everyone realizes how and why everyone waas fooled). But when the show ends and explanation is offered for a particular affront to commonsense, there is a nit.
Episode guides and technical manuals may be consulted, but their value to a nitpicker is directly proportional to how binding they are on the writers and production staff. Episode guides are at least useful for doublechecking original airdates and the names of guest stars. Technical manuals are aimed at the most rabid fans of whom one almost wonders if they can distinguish the TV show from reality.
The next most important sources are IMDb.com and TV.com, along with the more informative fansites (such as those that offer transcripts or other data collected from the show). These may be used to doublecheck your own viewing and hearing of the movie or TV show. When these sources confirm what you saw and heard, they have fulfilled their purpose. But when they contradict what you saw and heard in a serious way (e.g., more serious than a simple misspelling) they have also served their purpose.
The least important source is Wikipedia. Vandalism and the posting of false information are now no longer a major concern; thanks to patrols, patently false information is removed within seconds. The problem with Wikipedia is that the egalitarian ideals of its founder are completely at odds with our classist society. Wikipedia has evolved a ruling class, and that ruling class places its collective ego above the quality of the content, all in the name of making an "encyclopedia." The result is that while Wikipedia barely has false information, it also lacks true information which would, in its founder's ideals, put Wikipedia at a perceptible advantage over regular encyclopedias (such as Encyclopedia Britannica, the online edition of which is almost as up-to-date as Wikipedia). Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, why don't you fix it? You can't, because it's not simply a matter of adding in the information that it lacks, it's also a matter of changing the politics of its community to something less stratifying. Wikipedia can't be used for an application as frivolous as nitpicking, much less for any application where money or even lives are at stake. When it comes to movies and TV shows in English, Wikipedia offers nothing that can't be just as easily obtained from another website.
So in a nutshell: for nitpicking a movie or a TV show, the most important source is the movie or TV show itself. Everything else falls somewhere below that.
I'll briefly go over what sources a nitpicker can use in nitpicking. The most important source is, of course, the movie or episode itself. The most satisfying nits come directly from the movie or episode. In the case of TV shows, previous episodes are relevant for nitpicking newer episodes. If there are spinoffs (whether to movies or TV shows) these can come into play also. When a movie or TV show is an adaptation of a book (or part of a book), that book can be used for nitpicking only when there is good reason to believe that the producers of the video content tried to be as loyal as possible to the original text; otherwise one has to go on the assumption that the producers allowed themselves licenses beyond what would be strictly necessary for translating the material from the page to the screen (that is, not just compressing action and removing the less important characters and scenes from the book, but also inventing characters and scenes not in the book and making other changes along those lines). Needless to say, novelizations of movies and TV shows are not valid for nitpicking their originals.
The second most important source is your own commonsense. For after all, contradicting our commonsense without even attempting to give an explanation is one of the most important ways that a fictional story can break the suspension of disbelief. Some plot twists rely on contradicting our commonsense for their shock value, but after the shock subsides, some explanation is usually offered (for example, in lawyer shows when the real culprit is revealed and everyone realizes how and why everyone waas fooled). But when the show ends and explanation is offered for a particular affront to commonsense, there is a nit.
Episode guides and technical manuals may be consulted, but their value to a nitpicker is directly proportional to how binding they are on the writers and production staff. Episode guides are at least useful for doublechecking original airdates and the names of guest stars. Technical manuals are aimed at the most rabid fans of whom one almost wonders if they can distinguish the TV show from reality.
The next most important sources are IMDb.com and TV.com, along with the more informative fansites (such as those that offer transcripts or other data collected from the show). These may be used to doublecheck your own viewing and hearing of the movie or TV show. When these sources confirm what you saw and heard, they have fulfilled their purpose. But when they contradict what you saw and heard in a serious way (e.g., more serious than a simple misspelling) they have also served their purpose.
The least important source is Wikipedia. Vandalism and the posting of false information are now no longer a major concern; thanks to patrols, patently false information is removed within seconds. The problem with Wikipedia is that the egalitarian ideals of its founder are completely at odds with our classist society. Wikipedia has evolved a ruling class, and that ruling class places its collective ego above the quality of the content, all in the name of making an "encyclopedia." The result is that while Wikipedia barely has false information, it also lacks true information which would, in its founder's ideals, put Wikipedia at a perceptible advantage over regular encyclopedias (such as Encyclopedia Britannica, the online edition of which is almost as up-to-date as Wikipedia). Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, why don't you fix it? You can't, because it's not simply a matter of adding in the information that it lacks, it's also a matter of changing the politics of its community to something less stratifying. Wikipedia can't be used for an application as frivolous as nitpicking, much less for any application where money or even lives are at stake. When it comes to movies and TV shows in English, Wikipedia offers nothing that can't be just as easily obtained from another website.
So in a nutshell: for nitpicking a movie or a TV show, the most important source is the movie or TV show itself. Everything else falls somewhere below that.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
He didn't type up all those love letters
The film: Sex and the City: The Movie
What happened: Sitting up in bed, Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) reads a book of love letters by famous men. She complains that John James "Big" Preston (Chris Noth) has never written her a love letter, and that e-mails don't count. Later on in the film, after Big ditches Carrie at the altar, Big sends Carrie an e-mail which makes no effort whatsoever to win Carrie back. Carrie orders her assistant to place all e-mails from Big into a place she won't have to look at them. After a while, Carrie decides she does want to read Big's e-mails, but her assistant is not around. So Carrie guesses her assistant's password and finds that Big has e-mailed her, one by one, all the love letters from the book she had been reading. Carrie is touched by the gesture and goes to reconcile with Big.
Why it makes no sense: So if Big is really such a big-shot, does he really have time to be typing up love letters from some book? If the book is not readily available in some electronic format he can just copy and paste from, it would either have to be scanned in and text-recognized or typed up. Big doesn't have the time to type up an entire book, nor to scan the book a page at a time (or maybe two pages at a time), but he certainly has the time to order an assistant to make it happen. Either way, the gesture is cheapened by the intrusion of a third person. I guess it really has to be the thought that counts here.
As for the easily-guessed password of Carrie's assistant, it shows a lack of tech-savvy on her part, but is entirely realistic as there are people in real-life who choose passwords that are very prone to a dictionary attack.
What happened: Sitting up in bed, Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) reads a book of love letters by famous men. She complains that John James "Big" Preston (Chris Noth) has never written her a love letter, and that e-mails don't count. Later on in the film, after Big ditches Carrie at the altar, Big sends Carrie an e-mail which makes no effort whatsoever to win Carrie back. Carrie orders her assistant to place all e-mails from Big into a place she won't have to look at them. After a while, Carrie decides she does want to read Big's e-mails, but her assistant is not around. So Carrie guesses her assistant's password and finds that Big has e-mailed her, one by one, all the love letters from the book she had been reading. Carrie is touched by the gesture and goes to reconcile with Big.
Why it makes no sense: So if Big is really such a big-shot, does he really have time to be typing up love letters from some book? If the book is not readily available in some electronic format he can just copy and paste from, it would either have to be scanned in and text-recognized or typed up. Big doesn't have the time to type up an entire book, nor to scan the book a page at a time (or maybe two pages at a time), but he certainly has the time to order an assistant to make it happen. Either way, the gesture is cheapened by the intrusion of a third person. I guess it really has to be the thought that counts here.
As for the easily-guessed password of Carrie's assistant, it shows a lack of tech-savvy on her part, but is entirely realistic as there are people in real-life who choose passwords that are very prone to a dictionary attack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)