Thursday, February 26, 2009
Final Project Proposal
I want to critique the lack of visibility and current portrayal of lesbian/bisexual characters on primetime television. There are few bisexual characters and even fewer lesbians, but those that do exist seem to meet with overall implausible storylines. As soon as Willow and Tara finally got together for sure on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Tara died. After Callie told Erica that she really did want to be her on Grey’s Anatomy (after cheating on her with a man), Erica (who had only come out in the previous episode) picked a silly fight with her and walked off into the parking lot, never to return again. Bisexual character Thirteen on House only has sex with women when she’s feeling self-destructive due to her Huntington’s disease diagnosis; otherwise, she’s with men. Bones creator Hart Hanson has called Angela’s relationship with Roxie a “bump in the road” and on Nip/Tuck Olivia died and lesbian character Liz slept with her male colleague.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
'Project Runway' Amid Legal Struggle
The following is a link to an article by Brian Stelter about Project Runway:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/arts/television/21runw.html?ref=television.
The article discusses the legal struggle going on between NBC and the Weinstein Company. Bravo, which used to air Project Runway, sold the rights to Lifetime, which is a breach of contract. NBC subsequently sued, causing the Weinstein Company to counter-sue.
Now the season can't air until the mess is sorted out, and as a result, the final contestants weren't allowed to be onstage for the presentation of their final collections during Fashion Week, a tradition that audience members really enjoy.
I, personally, feel really bad the contestants. The show talks about how its not a reality show for the sake of being a reality show but that its presence is honestly to serve the industry, and I believe it - it's never seemed to me as if it's catering to audiences and rankings. So I think that it's really sad that the contestants can't be acknowledged for and be proud of their work. I understand the legalities behind the issue, but I also think that the legal system moves painfully slowly. I don't know when they started filming this season, but maybe they just shouldn't have started until the legal mess was cleared up.
Tim Gunn's a little worried that the viewers won't stick around long enough for the mess to be sorted out, and I think that's a valid concern, but I also think that fashion's a pretty contemporary issue - people will come back to Project Runway when it comes back. If Grey's Anatomy decided to take a little hiatus, though, the same thing probably couldn't be said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/arts/television/21runw.html?ref=television.
The article discusses the legal struggle going on between NBC and the Weinstein Company. Bravo, which used to air Project Runway, sold the rights to Lifetime, which is a breach of contract. NBC subsequently sued, causing the Weinstein Company to counter-sue.
Now the season can't air until the mess is sorted out, and as a result, the final contestants weren't allowed to be onstage for the presentation of their final collections during Fashion Week, a tradition that audience members really enjoy.
I, personally, feel really bad the contestants. The show talks about how its not a reality show for the sake of being a reality show but that its presence is honestly to serve the industry, and I believe it - it's never seemed to me as if it's catering to audiences and rankings. So I think that it's really sad that the contestants can't be acknowledged for and be proud of their work. I understand the legalities behind the issue, but I also think that the legal system moves painfully slowly. I don't know when they started filming this season, but maybe they just shouldn't have started until the legal mess was cleared up.
Tim Gunn's a little worried that the viewers won't stick around long enough for the mess to be sorted out, and I think that's a valid concern, but I also think that fashion's a pretty contemporary issue - people will come back to Project Runway when it comes back. If Grey's Anatomy decided to take a little hiatus, though, the same thing probably couldn't be said.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Oscar's Review
Oscar’s Perpetuate Country’s Mood
By Jessica Maas
Preceding his fourth presentation at the 81st Annual Academy Awards, Will Smith accurately summed up the presence of the show’s supposed host when he joked that “I think Hugh is napping.” The problem is, it could’ve been true. Hugh Jackman was mysteriously absent for much of the night, and it couldn’t have been because the rest of the show stood strongly on its own. The Oscar’s fell flat on Sunday; the result of an absent host, awkward presentations, and bad jokes and lulls that created a depressing mood, mirroring that of the country.
Jackman spent few extended moments on stage, causing his presence to seem more of a formality than anything else. When he did hang out for longer, he had the bad habit of dampening the atmosphere. Early into his opening he mentioned the recession, a fact no one wants to be reminded of, but he seemed to redeem himself with the song he sang about last year’s movies, which included “Frost/Nixon,” “The Reader,” “Slumdog Millionaire,” and a surprise Anne Hathaway visit at the end that prompted laughs. Jackman managed to bring the mood back down, though, by mentioning the recession again and then awkwardly sitting in Frank Langella’s lap. He was just as uncomfortable near the end of the night, when he noted that Sid Ganis, President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, is stepping down and then said that “as a gift to all of us he has agreed not to make a speech,” which elicited uneasy looks among audience members.
Few of the presenters who joined Jackman on stage had much charisma, either. Bill Marr’s joke about his own film not receiving a nomination sounded bitter and Jessica Biel, who wasn’t on the big screen all year and has never even been nominated for a major award, looked insignificant and out of place among the big stars. Jack Black and Jennifer Aniston made for an awkward pairing, and though Black was meant to be funny when he answered Aniston’s question of “Did you watch any movie this year you weren’t in?” with “No. But then, neither did most people,” it instead served to perpetuate the dismal mood. Will Smith and Reese Witherspoon were the bright spots among the presenters with their comfortable presences and easy jokes; Witherspoon had a particularly amusing jab at Ben Stiller for not coming out of his trailer when on set.
Other off moments included the curtain failing to open for a video at the beginning of the night, Jackman having to tell the music to stop playing, and a standstill in entertainment that began with presenters Daniel Craig and Sarah Jessica Parker, who didn’t even attempt to be funny. The use of five former award recipients to present each of the acting awards was innovative, though, and allowed each nominee their own presenter and feeling of individuality when being spoken of. Beyonce and Queen Latifah’s performances each resonated as well, but the few enjoyable parts of the night weren’t enough to lift the Oscar’s – in entertainment or mood.
By Jessica Maas
Preceding his fourth presentation at the 81st Annual Academy Awards, Will Smith accurately summed up the presence of the show’s supposed host when he joked that “I think Hugh is napping.” The problem is, it could’ve been true. Hugh Jackman was mysteriously absent for much of the night, and it couldn’t have been because the rest of the show stood strongly on its own. The Oscar’s fell flat on Sunday; the result of an absent host, awkward presentations, and bad jokes and lulls that created a depressing mood, mirroring that of the country.
Jackman spent few extended moments on stage, causing his presence to seem more of a formality than anything else. When he did hang out for longer, he had the bad habit of dampening the atmosphere. Early into his opening he mentioned the recession, a fact no one wants to be reminded of, but he seemed to redeem himself with the song he sang about last year’s movies, which included “Frost/Nixon,” “The Reader,” “Slumdog Millionaire,” and a surprise Anne Hathaway visit at the end that prompted laughs. Jackman managed to bring the mood back down, though, by mentioning the recession again and then awkwardly sitting in Frank Langella’s lap. He was just as uncomfortable near the end of the night, when he noted that Sid Ganis, President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, is stepping down and then said that “as a gift to all of us he has agreed not to make a speech,” which elicited uneasy looks among audience members.
Few of the presenters who joined Jackman on stage had much charisma, either. Bill Marr’s joke about his own film not receiving a nomination sounded bitter and Jessica Biel, who wasn’t on the big screen all year and has never even been nominated for a major award, looked insignificant and out of place among the big stars. Jack Black and Jennifer Aniston made for an awkward pairing, and though Black was meant to be funny when he answered Aniston’s question of “Did you watch any movie this year you weren’t in?” with “No. But then, neither did most people,” it instead served to perpetuate the dismal mood. Will Smith and Reese Witherspoon were the bright spots among the presenters with their comfortable presences and easy jokes; Witherspoon had a particularly amusing jab at Ben Stiller for not coming out of his trailer when on set.
Other off moments included the curtain failing to open for a video at the beginning of the night, Jackman having to tell the music to stop playing, and a standstill in entertainment that began with presenters Daniel Craig and Sarah Jessica Parker, who didn’t even attempt to be funny. The use of five former award recipients to present each of the acting awards was innovative, though, and allowed each nominee their own presenter and feeling of individuality when being spoken of. Beyonce and Queen Latifah’s performances each resonated as well, but the few enjoyable parts of the night weren’t enough to lift the Oscar’s – in entertainment or mood.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Kael Review
Kael Had Passion, Communication
By Jessica Maas
Film critic Pauline Kael wanted to write the way people talked. In an interview with Francis Davis, she said, “I didn’t want to write academic English in an attempt to elevate movies, because I think that actually lowers them. It denies them what makes them distinctive.” Kael’s philosophy showed in her work; in the opening lines of a review of “The Witches of Eastwick,” she wrote, “Jack Nicholson entertains himself in The Witches of Eastwick: he snuffles and snorts like a hog, and he talks in a growl. And damned if he doesn’t entertain us, too.” Her use of accessible language to communicate effectively and her passion for film made Pauline Kael a great film critic.
Kael translated movies to page with a clarity that allowed them to be re-created. In a review of “Busybody,” she wrote, “There’s a scene in Silkwood in which Karen and the other employees of the Kerr-McGee plutonium and uranium fuel plant near Crescent, Oklahoma, are having lunch, and Karen, who likes to titillate her co-workers by showing them how freewheeling she is, nuzzles close to one of them – Drew (Kurt Russell), her lover – rubs his bare upper arm with her fingers, and them, swinging her hips and moving from table to table, starts to take a bite of somebody else’s sandwich.” She made characters come alive, and the language she used is both user-friendly and fun to read.
Her reviews were often overly lengthy, though. In her opening of the review of “Busybody,” she wrote, “Meryl Streep gives a fine performance as Karen Silkwood, considering that she’s the wrong kind of actress for the role.” Kael continued to jab at Streep throughout the review, and at the end she returned to her for the entire 231-word concluding paragraph to make the same point. She was less-than-succinct, a trait that can cause readers to get bogged down in one point and lose interest.
But Kael also displayed an independence and “no excuses” attitude that represented her passion for film. On numerous occasions she gave films bad reviews because it was her true opinion, even if she’d previously enjoyed the actor or director’s other work. In her interview with Davis, she said, “It’s always painful to get to know a director, because they almost always take it personally when you don’t like a film. No matter how much you loved their other work, a negative review takes precedence in their thinking.” In other cases, she gave great reviews when every other critic panned the same films. Her passion for film made it her duty to be honest in her review, and she was, regardless of personal feelings or what other critics were writing.
In the introduction to his interview with Kael, Davis mentions she wrote a blurb for a book he’d previously published. She wrote, “He’s a very impressive critic. He doesn’t pin fancy phrases on his chest; he gets at what he responds to and why – you feel you’re reading an honest man.” Change the gender, and Kael could’ve been writing about herself.
By Jessica Maas
Film critic Pauline Kael wanted to write the way people talked. In an interview with Francis Davis, she said, “I didn’t want to write academic English in an attempt to elevate movies, because I think that actually lowers them. It denies them what makes them distinctive.” Kael’s philosophy showed in her work; in the opening lines of a review of “The Witches of Eastwick,” she wrote, “Jack Nicholson entertains himself in The Witches of Eastwick: he snuffles and snorts like a hog, and he talks in a growl. And damned if he doesn’t entertain us, too.” Her use of accessible language to communicate effectively and her passion for film made Pauline Kael a great film critic.
Kael translated movies to page with a clarity that allowed them to be re-created. In a review of “Busybody,” she wrote, “There’s a scene in Silkwood in which Karen and the other employees of the Kerr-McGee plutonium and uranium fuel plant near Crescent, Oklahoma, are having lunch, and Karen, who likes to titillate her co-workers by showing them how freewheeling she is, nuzzles close to one of them – Drew (Kurt Russell), her lover – rubs his bare upper arm with her fingers, and them, swinging her hips and moving from table to table, starts to take a bite of somebody else’s sandwich.” She made characters come alive, and the language she used is both user-friendly and fun to read.
Her reviews were often overly lengthy, though. In her opening of the review of “Busybody,” she wrote, “Meryl Streep gives a fine performance as Karen Silkwood, considering that she’s the wrong kind of actress for the role.” Kael continued to jab at Streep throughout the review, and at the end she returned to her for the entire 231-word concluding paragraph to make the same point. She was less-than-succinct, a trait that can cause readers to get bogged down in one point and lose interest.
But Kael also displayed an independence and “no excuses” attitude that represented her passion for film. On numerous occasions she gave films bad reviews because it was her true opinion, even if she’d previously enjoyed the actor or director’s other work. In her interview with Davis, she said, “It’s always painful to get to know a director, because they almost always take it personally when you don’t like a film. No matter how much you loved their other work, a negative review takes precedence in their thinking.” In other cases, she gave great reviews when every other critic panned the same films. Her passion for film made it her duty to be honest in her review, and she was, regardless of personal feelings or what other critics were writing.
In the introduction to his interview with Kael, Davis mentions she wrote a blurb for a book he’d previously published. She wrote, “He’s a very impressive critic. He doesn’t pin fancy phrases on his chest; he gets at what he responds to and why – you feel you’re reading an honest man.” Change the gender, and Kael could’ve been writing about herself.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
"The Bachelor" + One
The following is a link to an article by Bill Carter about this season of "The Bachelor": http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/arts/television/16bach.html?_r=1&ref=television
I think it's really interesting that the attribute an increase in ratings to the fact that Jason, the "Bachelor," has a kid, but I can kind of understand it. Jason does have a greater sense of maturity to him that I think straight women like, but I'm not sure that they can jump to the conclusion that he's more likely to stay with whoever he ends up with in the end, whether it be Melissa or Molly (since he got rid of Jillian last night - and I hate that I know that). The two girls won't even meet Ty (the kid) until the final episode, and it's from there that Jason determines who he wants to spend "the rest of his life with." Do I understand that he wanted to wait to let Ty meet them? Yes. But I also think that there's no way for him to determine how compatible they'll be as a family after one meeting. It is a HUGE decision that Jason has to make, and I don't think that a man with a kid should even be involved with this kind of show - he's putting too much at risk for his kid. Even though I sometimes watch these shows, I don't at all agree with how they depict the process of falling in love, and I don't at all believe that people can actually stay together after they end. It's easy to hang out with someone and have a great time when you've left reality (your job, your family, your life, basically), but it's a whole other thing to take that fantasy world and put it back in the real world. Love shows are not intended to find love for people, they're intended to provide entertainment for viewers, and the network is going to do whatever it can to get ratings up.
I think it's really interesting that the attribute an increase in ratings to the fact that Jason, the "Bachelor," has a kid, but I can kind of understand it. Jason does have a greater sense of maturity to him that I think straight women like, but I'm not sure that they can jump to the conclusion that he's more likely to stay with whoever he ends up with in the end, whether it be Melissa or Molly (since he got rid of Jillian last night - and I hate that I know that). The two girls won't even meet Ty (the kid) until the final episode, and it's from there that Jason determines who he wants to spend "the rest of his life with." Do I understand that he wanted to wait to let Ty meet them? Yes. But I also think that there's no way for him to determine how compatible they'll be as a family after one meeting. It is a HUGE decision that Jason has to make, and I don't think that a man with a kid should even be involved with this kind of show - he's putting too much at risk for his kid. Even though I sometimes watch these shows, I don't at all agree with how they depict the process of falling in love, and I don't at all believe that people can actually stay together after they end. It's easy to hang out with someone and have a great time when you've left reality (your job, your family, your life, basically), but it's a whole other thing to take that fantasy world and put it back in the real world. Love shows are not intended to find love for people, they're intended to provide entertainment for viewers, and the network is going to do whatever it can to get ratings up.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
NYT Defense
This is a link to a film review of “He’s Just Not That Into You” by Manohla Dargis that was in Friday’s paper: http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/movies/06into.html?ref=movies
Dargis aptly reviews the film through the lenses of gender representation, and does so in a smooth and informative manner.
She compares the movie to other representations of gender for the first half of the review. While Dargis doesn’t get to her actual “but” right away, her use of these other devices let’s readers know that she’s not impressed by the female representation offered by the film. Her “but” is very clear: after comparing the movie to a children’s song, she writes “Such is more or less the reductive case in “He’s Just Not That Into You,” which is based on an obnoxious so-called advice book…”
She weaves her thoughts about the acting into her other thoughts on the film, and does an impressive job of taking on the large cast by fittingly separating the actors by gender. Her tone is mocking and funny, and suggests that her review may be more entertaining than the film itself.
Dargis’s overall structure is well done, and her bookend in the piece allows her to go out with a bang. Her piece is intellectually enlightening and educates readers about than just the film, proposing that there is something there worth thinking about, though it’s not the story on screen.
Dargis aptly reviews the film through the lenses of gender representation, and does so in a smooth and informative manner.
She compares the movie to other representations of gender for the first half of the review. While Dargis doesn’t get to her actual “but” right away, her use of these other devices let’s readers know that she’s not impressed by the female representation offered by the film. Her “but” is very clear: after comparing the movie to a children’s song, she writes “Such is more or less the reductive case in “He’s Just Not That Into You,” which is based on an obnoxious so-called advice book…”
She weaves her thoughts about the acting into her other thoughts on the film, and does an impressive job of taking on the large cast by fittingly separating the actors by gender. Her tone is mocking and funny, and suggests that her review may be more entertaining than the film itself.
Dargis’s overall structure is well done, and her bookend in the piece allows her to go out with a bang. Her piece is intellectually enlightening and educates readers about than just the film, proposing that there is something there worth thinking about, though it’s not the story on screen.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Film Review Outline
Review Outline
In Oliver Stone’s 2008 “W.,” Bush is characterized as a puppy lusting after his father’s approval in an unnecessary and painful two hour and nine minute tale of former president George W. Bush’s life.
§ Set-up of movie
§ Life as president combined with flashbacks
§ Bush’s characterization sympathetic
§ Lost as college student, father’s disappointment
§ Transformation
§ Character mostly left untouched
§ Good acting
§ Brolin as Bush
§ James Cromwell as senior Bush
§ Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush and Richard Dreyfuss as Cheney
§ Editing of film not so good
§ Flashbacks could be could, but don’t always stand well on their own
§ Running example
§ Conclusion: “W.” a waste, provides no new information, takes no stand
"W." Film Review
“W.” Stands For Waste
By Jessica Maas
Hands up in the air in the first scene of the film “W.”, George W. Bush, played by Josh Brolin, creates a “W” with his head. A display of this nature would generally proclaim the man’s individuality; in this film it does anything but. In Oliver Stone’s 2008 “W.,” Bush is characterized as a puppy lusting after his father’s approval in an unnecessary and painful two hour and nine minute tale of former president George W. Bush’s life.
The film follows Bush’s life as president after 9/11, and uses flashbacks as far back as his college days to lead up to his residence in the White House. These scenes allow insight into the person behind the public façade, through jobs he held, his problems with alcohol and inability to succeed in the eyes of his father, and his relationship with wife Laura.
Bush is cast in a sympathetic light throughout the film. He seems lost in life until he decides to do something about his father’s disappointment with him and then becomes comically transformed into a born-again Christian who follows in his father’s political footsteps and awkwardly forces time for prayer before he closes any meeting. Stone takes a few stabs at Bush’s use of language and overall intelligence, but they’re infrequent, and his character is mostly left untouched.
The best part of the film is its performances. Brolin slides easily into the role of the former president and executes it as if he’s the real man himself. As W.’s father, James Cromwell depicts the senior Bush as a genuinely tired but commanding man who evokes a poignant sympathy. Elizabeth Banks brings a refreshingly light presentation of Laura Bush to characterize life outside the White House, and Richard Dreyfuss leads the rest of the supporting cast as the compellingly patient and intelligent Dick Cheney, who Stone uses to present a contrast to Bush’s character.
Editing of the film seems to flounder, though. The change in time periods from President Bush to young Bush could keep the film fresh and are clearly meant to give more of Bush’s personality, but they fail to convey significance at times, especially when left to stand on their own. One example of this is a scene in which Bush’s run one morning ends with him lying passed out in a ditch but then the screen flashes forward a few years to the White House and no allusion to the scene or its importance is made again.
Stone has the opportunity to take a stand on Bush’s presidency with his film, but lets the moment pass unclaimed. It is unclear what the purpose of it is as a whole, or as released prior to the 2008 presidential election. Neither President Barack Obama, nor any of the general population, needs to see this film in the hopes of securing undisclosed information on what it means to be president or anything that has happened in the last eight years. The only thing “W.” provides is a waste of time.
By Jessica Maas
Hands up in the air in the first scene of the film “W.”, George W. Bush, played by Josh Brolin, creates a “W” with his head. A display of this nature would generally proclaim the man’s individuality; in this film it does anything but. In Oliver Stone’s 2008 “W.,” Bush is characterized as a puppy lusting after his father’s approval in an unnecessary and painful two hour and nine minute tale of former president George W. Bush’s life.
The film follows Bush’s life as president after 9/11, and uses flashbacks as far back as his college days to lead up to his residence in the White House. These scenes allow insight into the person behind the public façade, through jobs he held, his problems with alcohol and inability to succeed in the eyes of his father, and his relationship with wife Laura.
Bush is cast in a sympathetic light throughout the film. He seems lost in life until he decides to do something about his father’s disappointment with him and then becomes comically transformed into a born-again Christian who follows in his father’s political footsteps and awkwardly forces time for prayer before he closes any meeting. Stone takes a few stabs at Bush’s use of language and overall intelligence, but they’re infrequent, and his character is mostly left untouched.
The best part of the film is its performances. Brolin slides easily into the role of the former president and executes it as if he’s the real man himself. As W.’s father, James Cromwell depicts the senior Bush as a genuinely tired but commanding man who evokes a poignant sympathy. Elizabeth Banks brings a refreshingly light presentation of Laura Bush to characterize life outside the White House, and Richard Dreyfuss leads the rest of the supporting cast as the compellingly patient and intelligent Dick Cheney, who Stone uses to present a contrast to Bush’s character.
Editing of the film seems to flounder, though. The change in time periods from President Bush to young Bush could keep the film fresh and are clearly meant to give more of Bush’s personality, but they fail to convey significance at times, especially when left to stand on their own. One example of this is a scene in which Bush’s run one morning ends with him lying passed out in a ditch but then the screen flashes forward a few years to the White House and no allusion to the scene or its importance is made again.
Stone has the opportunity to take a stand on Bush’s presidency with his film, but lets the moment pass unclaimed. It is unclear what the purpose of it is as a whole, or as released prior to the 2008 presidential election. Neither President Barack Obama, nor any of the general population, needs to see this film in the hopes of securing undisclosed information on what it means to be president or anything that has happened in the last eight years. The only thing “W.” provides is a waste of time.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
"Burn Notice" Article
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/arts/television/01bell.html?ref=television
I always like Ginia Bellafante's reviews. On Friday, she published one entitled "Lusting After Guns, and the Affections of an Ex-Boyfriend," and while I like it - it's funny and witty, usual - I think it's unclear what her message about the show actually is.
She's talking about the character of Fiona Glenanne on USA's "Burn Notice." The show is currently in it's second-season, and is about Fiona and Michael's (former operatives) journey to figure out who "burned" him.
It appears that what she's saying is that Fiona's character really works: she's funny, she's real, and the actress does a great job of capturing her. Bellafante writes that "...producers correctly foresaw the comic potential of using a woman who looks as if she has stepped out of Burke's Peerage and Gentry to play someone who appears to live in the pages of Jane's Defense Weekly" and that "Fiona is character who has no memorable precedent." In other words, she's fresh - she's not on ABC at 9pm and then again at 10pm and then again three times the next night because writers these days don't seem to know how to create real characters.
It's the last paragraph in the review that really makes me think twice. She writes " 'Burn Notice' may have set out to say something about espionage in the post-9/11 age, but it has turned into a winning post-feminism revenge fantasy. Fiona fights for us all." I'm struggling with Bellafante's tone here - she's almost sounds like she's mocking Fiona and the show. She does call it "winning," so I'm led to believe that she likes it, but I'm also wondering if she's saying that the show isn't at all about what it's intended to be about. I don't know, I may just be reading way too far into this, but, as always, she's funny, and interesting to read.
I always like Ginia Bellafante's reviews. On Friday, she published one entitled "Lusting After Guns, and the Affections of an Ex-Boyfriend," and while I like it - it's funny and witty, usual - I think it's unclear what her message about the show actually is.
She's talking about the character of Fiona Glenanne on USA's "Burn Notice." The show is currently in it's second-season, and is about Fiona and Michael's (former operatives) journey to figure out who "burned" him.
It appears that what she's saying is that Fiona's character really works: she's funny, she's real, and the actress does a great job of capturing her. Bellafante writes that "...producers correctly foresaw the comic potential of using a woman who looks as if she has stepped out of Burke's Peerage and Gentry to play someone who appears to live in the pages of Jane's Defense Weekly" and that "Fiona is character who has no memorable precedent." In other words, she's fresh - she's not on ABC at 9pm and then again at 10pm and then again three times the next night because writers these days don't seem to know how to create real characters.
It's the last paragraph in the review that really makes me think twice. She writes " 'Burn Notice' may have set out to say something about espionage in the post-9/11 age, but it has turned into a winning post-feminism revenge fantasy. Fiona fights for us all." I'm struggling with Bellafante's tone here - she's almost sounds like she's mocking Fiona and the show. She does call it "winning," so I'm led to believe that she likes it, but I'm also wondering if she's saying that the show isn't at all about what it's intended to be about. I don't know, I may just be reading way too far into this, but, as always, she's funny, and interesting to read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)