Last year, at the beginning of the television season, I stated that the word for this season was "bland." For the most part I stand by that. For the most part the shows that debuted this television season have been derivative and unremarkable. Little did I know that there would be one exception to the overall banality of this year's TV offerings, a show simply called Lost.
When I first heard the premise for Lost, I thought it sounded utterly preposterous. For one thing, with today's technology it seems impossible that a plane load of people could remain stranded on an island very long. For another, I thought that a show about people stranded on an island would run out of stories to tell pretty rapidly, unless they played it for laughs (and that has been done before--the classic Gilligan's Island). Little did I know that creator J. J. Abrams had more in mind than a TV version of Robinson Crusoe with more characters.
Indeed, there is more to Lost than meets the eye. Abrams has left many questions to be answered, not the least of which is what caused the plane to crash and exactly where our castaways are. Why don't the compasses point to where north should be? How did John Locke (Terry O'Quinn) miraculously start walking after the crash, when he had been in a wheel chair before? What is the mysterious beastie that stalks the island's jungles? One thing seems clear. This island is like no other. In fact, it might not even be in this reality...
Much of the success of Lost can be attributed to its large and fine cast. Dominic Monaghan (Merry from the Lord of the Rings movies) is perfect as Charlie, the good hearted rock star who is recovering from a heroin addiction. Josh Holloway is all too convincing as Sawyer, the bad guy in the group who always looking to make a quick buck. Perhaps the best performance is given by veteran Terry O'Quinn as the mysterious John Locke, the man who seems to know literally everything.
If Lost has one flaw, it is Abrams' tendency to telegraph his foreshadowing. The perfect example is from the pilot episode. People keep walking in front of the plane's turbines, which are still spinning. It doesn't take much for even a none too bright viewer to realise that sooner or later someone will get sucked into the turbine (and they do...).
For the most part, however, Lost is an enjoyable ride. Even when one starts thinking that the show is a bit far fetched, the show soon traps them once more. Lost is an enthralling show to watch. And the single bright spot in an otherwise dull season.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Friday, January 14, 2005
The 300 Spartans
My DVD of The 300 Spartans arrived from Amazon.Com today. I seem to recall seeing it as a child. I know I saw it a few years ago on TCM. Naturally, I watched it again tonight.
The 300 Spartans is based on the battle of Thermopylae, recounted in Herodotus's Histories. It was at the pass of Thermopylae that King Leonidas of Sparta and 300 Spartans fought King Xerxes of Persia and his absolutely vast army (Herodotus estimates 3.4 million; modern historians number his forces at anywhere from 25.000 to 300.000). Although Leonidas and his are ultimately defeated, they delayed Xerxes long enough for the rest of Greece to gather enough forces to defeat the Persians.
The 300 Spartans was one of the last sword and sandal epics, released by Twentieth Century Fox in 1962. Beyond Richard Egan and Sir Ralph Richardson, some of the acting is a bit stilted. Some of the battle scenes seem rather disorganised at times, not quite what one would expect of two highly trained forces of soldiers. And an entirely unneccessary romance is introduced into the plot. But don't let these shortcomings deceive you. The 300 Spartans is one of those movies that is greater than the sum of its parts.
First, The 300 Spartans is one of the few historical movies that remains somewhat loyal to its source material. The plot more or less follows Herodotus' tale of the battle, with only a few departures from the text. This is remarkable for any movie based on a historical event, even those made today. Second, while some of the battle scenes could have used better choreography, there are others that are absolutely brilliant. The final showdown between the Spartans and their Persian enemies is appropriately dramatic and accomplishes much without the benefit of a big budget or special effects. Third, both Richard Egan and Sir Ralph Richardson give stellar performances. Indeed, Egan has some of the best lines from any movie, particularly the line "Today we will fight in the shade," in response to Persian claims that their arrows will blot out the sun (the line is straight from Herodotus!). Fourth, the film is beautifullly shot. It has some fine cinematography.
The average film goer today probably has not heard of The 300 Spartans, which is unfortunate. While the film does not match Spartacus, it is superior to many other sword and sandal movies. And it tells one of the most compelling stories straight from the pages of history.
The 300 Spartans is based on the battle of Thermopylae, recounted in Herodotus's Histories. It was at the pass of Thermopylae that King Leonidas of Sparta and 300 Spartans fought King Xerxes of Persia and his absolutely vast army (Herodotus estimates 3.4 million; modern historians number his forces at anywhere from 25.000 to 300.000). Although Leonidas and his are ultimately defeated, they delayed Xerxes long enough for the rest of Greece to gather enough forces to defeat the Persians.
The 300 Spartans was one of the last sword and sandal epics, released by Twentieth Century Fox in 1962. Beyond Richard Egan and Sir Ralph Richardson, some of the acting is a bit stilted. Some of the battle scenes seem rather disorganised at times, not quite what one would expect of two highly trained forces of soldiers. And an entirely unneccessary romance is introduced into the plot. But don't let these shortcomings deceive you. The 300 Spartans is one of those movies that is greater than the sum of its parts.
First, The 300 Spartans is one of the few historical movies that remains somewhat loyal to its source material. The plot more or less follows Herodotus' tale of the battle, with only a few departures from the text. This is remarkable for any movie based on a historical event, even those made today. Second, while some of the battle scenes could have used better choreography, there are others that are absolutely brilliant. The final showdown between the Spartans and their Persian enemies is appropriately dramatic and accomplishes much without the benefit of a big budget or special effects. Third, both Richard Egan and Sir Ralph Richardson give stellar performances. Indeed, Egan has some of the best lines from any movie, particularly the line "Today we will fight in the shade," in response to Persian claims that their arrows will blot out the sun (the line is straight from Herodotus!). Fourth, the film is beautifullly shot. It has some fine cinematography.
The average film goer today probably has not heard of The 300 Spartans, which is unfortunate. While the film does not match Spartacus, it is superior to many other sword and sandal movies. And it tells one of the most compelling stories straight from the pages of history.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
The Late, Great Will Eisner
On January 3, 2005, perhaps the greatest legend in comic books died. Will Eisner died at age 87 following quadruple bypass heart surgery in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Eisner not only created numerous comic book and comic strip characters (the most famous of which was probably The Spirit), but also changed the shape of comic books and introduced the concept of the graphic novel. Most importantly, perhaps more than any other single creator, he argued for the acceptance of comic books and comic strips as genuine works of art.
Will Eisner was born in Brooklyn, NY on March 6, 1917. He attended high school at De Witt Clinton High School in the Bronx, where Bob Kane (the creator of Batman) was one of his classmates. Eisner was 19 when he sold his first work to Wow What a Magazine! There he created two features, Harry Karry and The Flame (later renamed Hawks of the Sea).
Wow What a Magazine! folded after four issues, after which Eisner entered into a partnership with friend Jerry Iger to form the Eisner-Iger studio. The Eisner-Iger studio was the first of its kind, a studio dedicated to generating comic strips both for newspapers and the new medium of comic books. The studio employed many artists who would later become famous: Jack Kirby, Lou Fine, and Bob Kane. The Eisner-Iger Studio produced strips for such comic book publishers as Fiction House, Quality Comics, and Fox Publications. It was at the studio that Eisner co-created Sheena, Queen of the Jungle, with Jerry Iger.
Eisner parted ways with Iger in 1939 for a deal with Quality Comics. There Eisner created some of the most enduring comic book characters: Doll Man (one of the earliest superheros and the first with shrinking powers), Uncle Sam, Blackhawk, The Black Condor (co-created with Lou Fine), and The Ray (also co-created with Lou Fine). It was Quality Comics that would lead to his most enduring creation. Everett M. Arnold, Quality's publisher, had struck upon the idea of producing comic book like inserts to be placed in Sunday newspapers. Arnold asked Eisner to develop a comic strip for these inserts. The strip that Eisner created was The Spirit.
The Spirit was criminologist Denny Colt. Mistakenly thought dead after an attempt on life, Colt used his supposed death to his advantage, assuming the identity of The Spirit to fight crime. It was in the pages of The Spirit that Eisner introduced Lady Luck, one of the earliest female costumed characters. She soon got her own comic strip.
The Spirit proved very successful, so that naturally the newspaper strips were reprinted in Quality comic books. Eisner's original run on The Spirit ended in 1942 when he was draughted. Eisner was stationed in Washington D. C. where he practised his art in the service of his country. He created "Joe Dope," a comic strip through which Jeep maintenace was taught to servicemen. He also edited the army journal Firepower.
Demobilised in 1946, Eisner returned to The Spirit. For the next four years Eisner took The Spirit where no comic strip or comic book had been before. Rather than supervillains, The Spirit fought petty hoodlums and cheap criminals. Eisner's style became more cinematic, with unsual angles and panel shapes. His stories became epic in length. Effectively, The Spirit became one of the few adult strips around.
Eisner left The Spirit in 1950 to found the American Visual Corporation, which produced various magazines and manuals. His creation, The Spirit, now in others' hands, ended in 1952.
Eisner may well have been forgotten by all but comic book and comic strip fans had it not been for Jules Feiffer. In 1965, The Great Comic Book Heroes by Jules Feiffer was published. The Great Comic Book Heroes was not only a nostalgic look back at the Golden Age superheroes, but the first book to examine the medium with any amount of seriousness. Feiffer singled Eisner out for praise and included, among the other comic book stories reprinted in the book, one featuring The Spirit. Soon Eisner found himself deluged with requests for The Spirit's return.
Eisner wrote new Spirit stories for much of the Seventies. In 1978 Einser invented the graphic novel with the publication of A Contract with God. In fact, it was Eisner who coined the term "graphic novel." Thereafter Eisner produced at least one graphic novel each year.
Will Eisner was among the earliest proponets of comic books as a literary form. While many of his contemporaries in the Thirties were wanting to break into magazine illustration, Eisner was already looking at the comic book as an artform. He wrote the book Comics & Sequential Art in which he outlined the principles telling stories in comic books. Besides expressing his own ideas and theories on the artform, Eisner argues for its acceptance as an artform. Eisner wrote another book, Graphic Storytelling, which expands upon the ideas he expressed in Comics & Sequential Art.
Eisner was respected as an innovator in the field of comic books. Aside from the many important characters he had created, he had revolutionised the field. Eisner was the first artist to use panels with no dialogue or even thought balloons in which a character's facial expression showed how he or she felt. Einser was the first to address serious issues in the form of a comic book. He was the first to vary panel size, angles, and even lettering to suit the story at hand. With Iger he was the first to establish a comic strip studio. And as pointed out, he also invented the graphic novel. Is it any wonder that the comic book industry's equivalent of the Oscar or the Emmy is called the Eisner?
As a comic book fan, it is impossible to estimate the influence Will Eisner has had on my life. I read The Spirit as a child, as well as stories featuring other characters he had created. As an adult I read his grahpic novels, as well as Comics & Sequential Art. Even had I read nothing written and drawn by Eisner, it would be hard to escape his influence. Virtually every comic book, every graphic novel published today shows his influence in some way. It is for that reason that I am very saddened by his passing. It means that Plot, to be published later this year, will be his last work. It is doubtful that comic books will ever see one as great as Eisner.
Will Eisner was born in Brooklyn, NY on March 6, 1917. He attended high school at De Witt Clinton High School in the Bronx, where Bob Kane (the creator of Batman) was one of his classmates. Eisner was 19 when he sold his first work to Wow What a Magazine! There he created two features, Harry Karry and The Flame (later renamed Hawks of the Sea).
Wow What a Magazine! folded after four issues, after which Eisner entered into a partnership with friend Jerry Iger to form the Eisner-Iger studio. The Eisner-Iger studio was the first of its kind, a studio dedicated to generating comic strips both for newspapers and the new medium of comic books. The studio employed many artists who would later become famous: Jack Kirby, Lou Fine, and Bob Kane. The Eisner-Iger Studio produced strips for such comic book publishers as Fiction House, Quality Comics, and Fox Publications. It was at the studio that Eisner co-created Sheena, Queen of the Jungle, with Jerry Iger.
Eisner parted ways with Iger in 1939 for a deal with Quality Comics. There Eisner created some of the most enduring comic book characters: Doll Man (one of the earliest superheros and the first with shrinking powers), Uncle Sam, Blackhawk, The Black Condor (co-created with Lou Fine), and The Ray (also co-created with Lou Fine). It was Quality Comics that would lead to his most enduring creation. Everett M. Arnold, Quality's publisher, had struck upon the idea of producing comic book like inserts to be placed in Sunday newspapers. Arnold asked Eisner to develop a comic strip for these inserts. The strip that Eisner created was The Spirit.
The Spirit was criminologist Denny Colt. Mistakenly thought dead after an attempt on life, Colt used his supposed death to his advantage, assuming the identity of The Spirit to fight crime. It was in the pages of The Spirit that Eisner introduced Lady Luck, one of the earliest female costumed characters. She soon got her own comic strip.
The Spirit proved very successful, so that naturally the newspaper strips were reprinted in Quality comic books. Eisner's original run on The Spirit ended in 1942 when he was draughted. Eisner was stationed in Washington D. C. where he practised his art in the service of his country. He created "Joe Dope," a comic strip through which Jeep maintenace was taught to servicemen. He also edited the army journal Firepower.
Demobilised in 1946, Eisner returned to The Spirit. For the next four years Eisner took The Spirit where no comic strip or comic book had been before. Rather than supervillains, The Spirit fought petty hoodlums and cheap criminals. Eisner's style became more cinematic, with unsual angles and panel shapes. His stories became epic in length. Effectively, The Spirit became one of the few adult strips around.
Eisner left The Spirit in 1950 to found the American Visual Corporation, which produced various magazines and manuals. His creation, The Spirit, now in others' hands, ended in 1952.
Eisner may well have been forgotten by all but comic book and comic strip fans had it not been for Jules Feiffer. In 1965, The Great Comic Book Heroes by Jules Feiffer was published. The Great Comic Book Heroes was not only a nostalgic look back at the Golden Age superheroes, but the first book to examine the medium with any amount of seriousness. Feiffer singled Eisner out for praise and included, among the other comic book stories reprinted in the book, one featuring The Spirit. Soon Eisner found himself deluged with requests for The Spirit's return.
Eisner wrote new Spirit stories for much of the Seventies. In 1978 Einser invented the graphic novel with the publication of A Contract with God. In fact, it was Eisner who coined the term "graphic novel." Thereafter Eisner produced at least one graphic novel each year.
Will Eisner was among the earliest proponets of comic books as a literary form. While many of his contemporaries in the Thirties were wanting to break into magazine illustration, Eisner was already looking at the comic book as an artform. He wrote the book Comics & Sequential Art in which he outlined the principles telling stories in comic books. Besides expressing his own ideas and theories on the artform, Eisner argues for its acceptance as an artform. Eisner wrote another book, Graphic Storytelling, which expands upon the ideas he expressed in Comics & Sequential Art.
Eisner was respected as an innovator in the field of comic books. Aside from the many important characters he had created, he had revolutionised the field. Eisner was the first artist to use panels with no dialogue or even thought balloons in which a character's facial expression showed how he or she felt. Einser was the first to address serious issues in the form of a comic book. He was the first to vary panel size, angles, and even lettering to suit the story at hand. With Iger he was the first to establish a comic strip studio. And as pointed out, he also invented the graphic novel. Is it any wonder that the comic book industry's equivalent of the Oscar or the Emmy is called the Eisner?
As a comic book fan, it is impossible to estimate the influence Will Eisner has had on my life. I read The Spirit as a child, as well as stories featuring other characters he had created. As an adult I read his grahpic novels, as well as Comics & Sequential Art. Even had I read nothing written and drawn by Eisner, it would be hard to escape his influence. Virtually every comic book, every graphic novel published today shows his influence in some way. It is for that reason that I am very saddened by his passing. It means that Plot, to be published later this year, will be his last work. It is doubtful that comic books will ever see one as great as Eisner.
Sunday, January 9, 2005
Computer Games
I saw on Amazon that Sid Meier's Pirates! is now out. I never really played the original version of Pirates much, although I played plenty of other games Sid Meier created, and other computer games as well.
In fact, one of the first computer games I ever played was Civlization. The computer game was based on the popular board game of the same name. As in the board game, one selects a particular civilisation which one will build from the Stone Age to Space Age. One competed with other civilisations, played by the computer (unless one had the multiplayer version of the game...), with whom one could even go to war. It was essentially a game of strategy, very fun but not particuarly easy.
As much as I loved Civilization, I loved Civlization II even more. Civ II was essentially a more advanced version of the game, which even allowed one to play different scenarios (such as the Crusades or World War I). It was even harder than Civilization, but even more fun. A few years ago a Civlization III was produced, but I never did care for it. It didn't seem nearly as fun as either Civilization or Civ II.
Sid Meier also created a game called Colonization. It was like Civlization in many ways, only instead of creating a civilisation, one was trying to colonise the Americas. Complicating this task were the Natives and other countries attempting colonisation. It was also a fun game and considerably easier than any of the Civilization games.
I also enjoyed SimCity, a game which is still quite popular. In Sim City, one essentially built and ran a city. It could be a difficult game, especially when it came to polution down and the population happy. I also enjoyed the other "Sim" games. SimEarth allowed one to build a planet. Perhaps becuase of this, it was a lot harder than SimCity. It seems like my worlds always overheated or blew up. SimFarm was fun as well--one basically just ran a farm. It was also not that difficult. I never played The Sims, which seems to be the most popular of the games that Maxis has produced. It just doesn't look that interesting to me.
One of my favourite games was Cuthroats!. Unfortunately, it is no longer in production. In Cuthroats!, one was essentially the captain of a pirate ship. It involved a good deal of strategy and even a bit of micromanagement. One had to keep his or her crew happy, which meant getting as much booty as possible while keeping plenty of rum and food in stock. It is a shame that this game is out of print, as it was probably the most enjoyable game I ever played short of Civlization II.
Of course, I played plenty of role playing games, but I have yet to play EverQuest. Quite simply, my computer won't handle it. I have heard from a very reliable and lovely source, however, that it is a very enjoyable game. Indeed, there are times I wonder that she isn't addicted to it...
At the moment I have no games on my computer. With its tiny hard drive and its advanced age (the machine is six years old), it doesn't seem the wise thing to do. But I rather suspect that when I get a new computer, I probably will put some games on it--Sid Meier's Pirates!, EverQuest, SimCity, and one of the Civ games at least...
In fact, one of the first computer games I ever played was Civlization. The computer game was based on the popular board game of the same name. As in the board game, one selects a particular civilisation which one will build from the Stone Age to Space Age. One competed with other civilisations, played by the computer (unless one had the multiplayer version of the game...), with whom one could even go to war. It was essentially a game of strategy, very fun but not particuarly easy.
As much as I loved Civilization, I loved Civlization II even more. Civ II was essentially a more advanced version of the game, which even allowed one to play different scenarios (such as the Crusades or World War I). It was even harder than Civilization, but even more fun. A few years ago a Civlization III was produced, but I never did care for it. It didn't seem nearly as fun as either Civilization or Civ II.
Sid Meier also created a game called Colonization. It was like Civlization in many ways, only instead of creating a civilisation, one was trying to colonise the Americas. Complicating this task were the Natives and other countries attempting colonisation. It was also a fun game and considerably easier than any of the Civilization games.
I also enjoyed SimCity, a game which is still quite popular. In Sim City, one essentially built and ran a city. It could be a difficult game, especially when it came to polution down and the population happy. I also enjoyed the other "Sim" games. SimEarth allowed one to build a planet. Perhaps becuase of this, it was a lot harder than SimCity. It seems like my worlds always overheated or blew up. SimFarm was fun as well--one basically just ran a farm. It was also not that difficult. I never played The Sims, which seems to be the most popular of the games that Maxis has produced. It just doesn't look that interesting to me.
One of my favourite games was Cuthroats!. Unfortunately, it is no longer in production. In Cuthroats!, one was essentially the captain of a pirate ship. It involved a good deal of strategy and even a bit of micromanagement. One had to keep his or her crew happy, which meant getting as much booty as possible while keeping plenty of rum and food in stock. It is a shame that this game is out of print, as it was probably the most enjoyable game I ever played short of Civlization II.
Of course, I played plenty of role playing games, but I have yet to play EverQuest. Quite simply, my computer won't handle it. I have heard from a very reliable and lovely source, however, that it is a very enjoyable game. Indeed, there are times I wonder that she isn't addicted to it...
At the moment I have no games on my computer. With its tiny hard drive and its advanced age (the machine is six years old), it doesn't seem the wise thing to do. But I rather suspect that when I get a new computer, I probably will put some games on it--Sid Meier's Pirates!, EverQuest, SimCity, and one of the Civ games at least...
Friday, January 7, 2005
The Decline of the Movie Musical
On Christmas night NBC aired It's a Wonderful Life and ABC aired The Sound of Music. Much to my shock, The Sound of Music soundly beat It's a Wonderful Life in the ratings. I still cannot believe it. To me It's a Wonderful Life is the greatest Yuletide movie of all time. As to The Sound of Music, well, I view it as a symptom in the decline of the movie musical.
With the advent of talkies came the movie musical. Throughout the Thirties, Forties, and Fifties, musicals filled theatres across the country. While MGM and RKO are the two studios best known for producing musicals, nearly every studio made them. And musicals did big business. It was in the early to mid Fifties that the movie musical reached its artistic peak. Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, Singin' in the Rain, The Band Wagon, and An American in Paris were all released between 1951 and 1954. In other words, the four greatest musical movies (at least in my opinion) were released in a space of three years. Unfortunately, as the Fifties wore on, musicals did worse and worse at the box office. By the late Fifties, it seems as if Hollywood stopped producing original musicals (such as Singin' in the Rain), their musical output consisting solely of stage adaptions (Mary Poppins was a rare exception). Many of these adaptations also number among the greatest musicals of all time: Gigi, My Fair Lady, The Music Man, and Oliver! among them. At the same time, however, there were a number of musicals produced that were, in my opinion, artistically (and sometimes financially as well) flops.
For me The Sound of Music falls in the category of an artistic flop. Oh, I love its score. The Sound of Music features some truly great songs. And Julie Andrews is charming. Unfortunately, the movie itself is one, huge bore. If the stage version was as dull as the movie is, it is a wonder it was a success at all. As to the movie, I cannot believe that it was a smash hit or that it has somehow become one of the most beloved movies of all time. Indeed, I don't know of anyone who likes the movie. In fact, those who hate the movie the most seem to be the ones who love musicals the most!
In the wake of The Sound of Music came a number of poorly produced, very bad musicals. As dull as The Sound of Music was, Dr. Doolittle surpassed it, draining all the charm out of Hugh Lofting's novel. Worse yet, with the possible exception of "Talk to the Animals," the entire score was forgettable.
As bad as Dr. Doolittle was, the 1969 musical remake of Goodbye, Mr. Chips was even worse. The 1939 classic film was a charming tale of a teacher and his life. The 1969 musical is the same story with any life whatsoever drained from it. The score is not only forgettable, but borders on amateurish in my opinion. It is quite possibly one of the worst musicals on film.
Star!, based on the life of actress Getrude Lawrence (with Julie Andrews in the title role), was not nearly as bad as Dr. Doolittle or Goodbye, Mr. Chips. The songs and musical numbers are impressive. Unfortunately, Star! drags when there isn't a musical number. In fact, its worst fault may be that it runs much too long.
Even when it seemed that there was no way a musical could go wrong in the late Sixties, somehow it did. Hello, Dolly! was based on the excellent stage musical. The film's director was The Man himself, Gene Kelly, the master of the Hollywood Musical. The sets and costumes are great. The film cannot be faulted for its production values. Unfortuately, what could have been a great film is undone by the casting of Dolly Levi. Barbara Streisand?! I can only wonder what they were thinking...
OF course, Hello, Dolly! only had Barbara Streisand really going against it. Man of La Mancha had much, much more. On paper, adapting the great stage musical seems like an excellent idea. This was a successful musical version of the tale of Don Quixote, with a score that had done well on the charts. The film that emerged, however, was wretched. The movie moves slower than a snail. No one can sing. Even the sets look terrible.
This is not to say that there weren't truly great musicals still being produced in the late Sixties and early Seventies. Oliver! was a truly well done version of the stage musical. And Fiddler on the Roof is, quite simply, one of the greatest movie musicals of all time. Unfortunately, these would not be enough to save the musical movie. In the Seventies only a few musicals would be produced and only one, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, was any good. Grease and Annie are both so terrible that they leave me longing for Dr. Doolittle. Or even Goodbye, Mr. Chips!
In recent years it seems as if the movie musical might be making a comeback. Moulin Rouge was a hit (although I have to fault it for their choice of music--only "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Diamonds are a Girls Best Friend" are good songs). Chicago did even better at the box office and picked up an Oscar in the process. What is more, it is a truly fine musical. I can only hope that more musicals like Chicago come out and such films as The Sound of Music, Dr. Doolittle, Goodbye, Mr. Chips, Grease, and Annie will be forgotten.
With the advent of talkies came the movie musical. Throughout the Thirties, Forties, and Fifties, musicals filled theatres across the country. While MGM and RKO are the two studios best known for producing musicals, nearly every studio made them. And musicals did big business. It was in the early to mid Fifties that the movie musical reached its artistic peak. Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, Singin' in the Rain, The Band Wagon, and An American in Paris were all released between 1951 and 1954. In other words, the four greatest musical movies (at least in my opinion) were released in a space of three years. Unfortunately, as the Fifties wore on, musicals did worse and worse at the box office. By the late Fifties, it seems as if Hollywood stopped producing original musicals (such as Singin' in the Rain), their musical output consisting solely of stage adaptions (Mary Poppins was a rare exception). Many of these adaptations also number among the greatest musicals of all time: Gigi, My Fair Lady, The Music Man, and Oliver! among them. At the same time, however, there were a number of musicals produced that were, in my opinion, artistically (and sometimes financially as well) flops.
For me The Sound of Music falls in the category of an artistic flop. Oh, I love its score. The Sound of Music features some truly great songs. And Julie Andrews is charming. Unfortunately, the movie itself is one, huge bore. If the stage version was as dull as the movie is, it is a wonder it was a success at all. As to the movie, I cannot believe that it was a smash hit or that it has somehow become one of the most beloved movies of all time. Indeed, I don't know of anyone who likes the movie. In fact, those who hate the movie the most seem to be the ones who love musicals the most!
In the wake of The Sound of Music came a number of poorly produced, very bad musicals. As dull as The Sound of Music was, Dr. Doolittle surpassed it, draining all the charm out of Hugh Lofting's novel. Worse yet, with the possible exception of "Talk to the Animals," the entire score was forgettable.
As bad as Dr. Doolittle was, the 1969 musical remake of Goodbye, Mr. Chips was even worse. The 1939 classic film was a charming tale of a teacher and his life. The 1969 musical is the same story with any life whatsoever drained from it. The score is not only forgettable, but borders on amateurish in my opinion. It is quite possibly one of the worst musicals on film.
Star!, based on the life of actress Getrude Lawrence (with Julie Andrews in the title role), was not nearly as bad as Dr. Doolittle or Goodbye, Mr. Chips. The songs and musical numbers are impressive. Unfortunately, Star! drags when there isn't a musical number. In fact, its worst fault may be that it runs much too long.
Even when it seemed that there was no way a musical could go wrong in the late Sixties, somehow it did. Hello, Dolly! was based on the excellent stage musical. The film's director was The Man himself, Gene Kelly, the master of the Hollywood Musical. The sets and costumes are great. The film cannot be faulted for its production values. Unfortuately, what could have been a great film is undone by the casting of Dolly Levi. Barbara Streisand?! I can only wonder what they were thinking...
OF course, Hello, Dolly! only had Barbara Streisand really going against it. Man of La Mancha had much, much more. On paper, adapting the great stage musical seems like an excellent idea. This was a successful musical version of the tale of Don Quixote, with a score that had done well on the charts. The film that emerged, however, was wretched. The movie moves slower than a snail. No one can sing. Even the sets look terrible.
This is not to say that there weren't truly great musicals still being produced in the late Sixties and early Seventies. Oliver! was a truly well done version of the stage musical. And Fiddler on the Roof is, quite simply, one of the greatest movie musicals of all time. Unfortunately, these would not be enough to save the musical movie. In the Seventies only a few musicals would be produced and only one, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, was any good. Grease and Annie are both so terrible that they leave me longing for Dr. Doolittle. Or even Goodbye, Mr. Chips!
In recent years it seems as if the movie musical might be making a comeback. Moulin Rouge was a hit (although I have to fault it for their choice of music--only "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Diamonds are a Girls Best Friend" are good songs). Chicago did even better at the box office and picked up an Oscar in the process. What is more, it is a truly fine musical. I can only hope that more musicals like Chicago come out and such films as The Sound of Music, Dr. Doolittle, Goodbye, Mr. Chips, Grease, and Annie will be forgotten.
Wednesday, January 5, 2005
January
Have I ever mentioned that there are times I really hate the month of January? As I see it, January is essentially the Monday of the year, and I am not just saying that because January is the first month of the year and Monday the first day of the work week. Let's face it, one works all week and then Friday comes and one is off for the weekend. One can do what he or she pleases. With regards to the year, one works all year and then come the holidays. Now most of us have to work at least part of the holidays, but at least it is a time of celebration and fun. Then comes January, the start of the year, and it's back to business as usual. No more Yuletide carols. No more decorations. No more evergreens. No more mistletoe. Just work and the bleak January landscape.
And speaking of the bleak January landscape, that is another reason I hate January. Now I don't mind snow. In fact, snow is very lovely to look at and very fun to play in. Like many I've enjoyed my share of snowball fights. The problem is that in Missouri we are more likely to have ice storms, which is what we have had today. I was all set to go to Texas to visit relatives and other loved ones when this thing came in. Now there is no way I can make it down there. The fact is, right now I would have trouble making it downtown...
Worse yet, beyond New Year's Day and Martin Luther King Day, January boasts no holidays. This makes the month rather dull. I am not surprised that January is the month of white sales, as the month is a lot like the colour white--dull and boring. Nothing is going on except the occasional ice storm.
Oh well, I suppose I have ranted enough. It is probably just the ice storm and the prospect of not getting to Texas that has me in a foul mood. I mean, things could be worse. It could be July...
And speaking of the bleak January landscape, that is another reason I hate January. Now I don't mind snow. In fact, snow is very lovely to look at and very fun to play in. Like many I've enjoyed my share of snowball fights. The problem is that in Missouri we are more likely to have ice storms, which is what we have had today. I was all set to go to Texas to visit relatives and other loved ones when this thing came in. Now there is no way I can make it down there. The fact is, right now I would have trouble making it downtown...
Worse yet, beyond New Year's Day and Martin Luther King Day, January boasts no holidays. This makes the month rather dull. I am not surprised that January is the month of white sales, as the month is a lot like the colour white--dull and boring. Nothing is going on except the occasional ice storm.
Oh well, I suppose I have ranted enough. It is probably just the ice storm and the prospect of not getting to Texas that has me in a foul mood. I mean, things could be worse. It could be July...
Sunday, January 2, 2005
The Doris Day Show
One of the shows I remember as a child is The Doris Day Show. I think there are only three reasons I remember the series. The first is that it starred Doris Day, an actress well known for her motion picture career. I am not sure that I saw any of her movies before The Doris Day Show, but I rather think I did while it was still on the air. The second is that it was on Monday night, when my family's TV set was tuned to CBS. After all, this was the night of Here's Lucy, Mayberry R.F.D., and The Carol Burnett Show. Finally, I remember the show because it seemed as if it changed format with every season!Indeed, The Doris Day Show demonstrates in miniature the changes that were overtaking television in the late Sixties and early Seventies.
The origin of The Doris Day Show are interesting in and of itself. In April 1968, Day's husband Marty Melcher died. Melcher's death brought to light the fact that he had been using Day's fortune to make various investments. Quite simply, Day was effectively bankrupt. His death also brought to light a deal Melcher had made with CBS in the spring of 1967 to star Day in a TV series. Day had no knowledge whatsoever of the deal. Although Day didn't particularly care for television, she needed the income from the series to win back the money she'd lost in court, not to mention to place her more solid financial ground.
The original incarnation of The Doris Day Show cast Day as Doris Martin, a widow and mother of two sons (Billy and Toby) who moves back to the ranch of her father Buck (Denver Pyle). The Doris Day Show was then effectively both a family comedy and a rural comedy, focusing on Doris's efforts to raise her childen and to readjust to life in the country. The second season brought a bit of a change to the series. Doris became the excecutive secretary to Mr. Nicholson (McLean Stevenson), editor of Today's World magazine.
It was the third season that brought a major change to the series. Doris and her two sons moved to San Francisco in order to be closer to her work. They lived in an apartment over a restaurant owned by Louie Pallucci (Bernie Kopell) and Angie Pallucci (Kaye Ballard). Doris still worked at Today's World, even acting as a reporter from time to time.
The fourth season still saw Doris Martin working at Today's World, but mysteriously she had become single with no kids in sight. Her new boss was Sy Bennett (John Dehner). I remember being somewhat puzzled at this change as a child. I wondered what happened to her children. After all, the series in its fourth season made no reference to them whatsoever. It is as if they not only ceased to exist, but ceased to have ever existed!
The Doris Day Show was very successful from the beginning. In its second season it ranked #10 in the top 25 shows for the season. In its third season it ranked #20. In its fourth season, even after the radical changes to the show, it ranked #23. The only reason the show ended was that Doris Day decided she could go nowhere else with the character of Doris Martin.
As I said, earlier, the changes in the format of The Doris Day Show reflected the changes that faced television in the late Sixties and the early Seventies. When The Doris Day Show debuted it was a family comedy, one of a number that would debut in the late Sixties (The Brady Bunch and The Partridge Family were two others). It was also one in a long run of rural comedies (The Andy Griffith Show and The Beverly Hillbillies being the most popular). Unfortunately, for rural comedies, the networks had discovered demographics in the Sixites. It was not enough to know how many people were watching a TV series, now the networks wanted to know who was watching it. The Madison Avenue advertisers wanted shows that appealed to young urban professionals (what would come to be called "Yuppies" in the Eighties). Because of this, the networks started purging their schedules of any shows that appealed to rural or older audiences. ABC cancelled The Lawrence Welk Show. CBS went even further, cancelling nearly all of their rural comedies, some which were still getting very good ratings (Mabyerry R.F.D. was still in the top twenty). It was then wise for Doris Day to move her character and her sons to San Francisco with the third season. To have done otherwise may have well killed the show. By the 1972-1973 season, the family comedies that had debuted in the late Sixties were on their way out. Both The Partridge Family and The Brady Bunch would leave the air in 1974. Among the hit series of the early Seventies was The Mary Tyler Moore Show, so it made sense to turn Doris Martin into a single career woman. The Doris Day Show then reflects the changes that occurred in American television from 1968 to 1973 quite well. It went from a rural, family comedy to an urban, family comedy to a comedy about a single career woman.
I rather suspect that the The Doris Day Show is rather unique in televison history. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any shows that changed their formats nearly as often. In fact, I have to wonder if the final incarnation of The Doris Day Show should not be treated as a different show, but with the same title and the same name for the lead character! At any rate, the changes in format didn't seemed to hurt the series in the ratings, even if it confused me as a child...
The origin of The Doris Day Show are interesting in and of itself. In April 1968, Day's husband Marty Melcher died. Melcher's death brought to light the fact that he had been using Day's fortune to make various investments. Quite simply, Day was effectively bankrupt. His death also brought to light a deal Melcher had made with CBS in the spring of 1967 to star Day in a TV series. Day had no knowledge whatsoever of the deal. Although Day didn't particularly care for television, she needed the income from the series to win back the money she'd lost in court, not to mention to place her more solid financial ground.
The original incarnation of The Doris Day Show cast Day as Doris Martin, a widow and mother of two sons (Billy and Toby) who moves back to the ranch of her father Buck (Denver Pyle). The Doris Day Show was then effectively both a family comedy and a rural comedy, focusing on Doris's efforts to raise her childen and to readjust to life in the country. The second season brought a bit of a change to the series. Doris became the excecutive secretary to Mr. Nicholson (McLean Stevenson), editor of Today's World magazine.
It was the third season that brought a major change to the series. Doris and her two sons moved to San Francisco in order to be closer to her work. They lived in an apartment over a restaurant owned by Louie Pallucci (Bernie Kopell) and Angie Pallucci (Kaye Ballard). Doris still worked at Today's World, even acting as a reporter from time to time.
The fourth season still saw Doris Martin working at Today's World, but mysteriously she had become single with no kids in sight. Her new boss was Sy Bennett (John Dehner). I remember being somewhat puzzled at this change as a child. I wondered what happened to her children. After all, the series in its fourth season made no reference to them whatsoever. It is as if they not only ceased to exist, but ceased to have ever existed!
The Doris Day Show was very successful from the beginning. In its second season it ranked #10 in the top 25 shows for the season. In its third season it ranked #20. In its fourth season, even after the radical changes to the show, it ranked #23. The only reason the show ended was that Doris Day decided she could go nowhere else with the character of Doris Martin.
As I said, earlier, the changes in the format of The Doris Day Show reflected the changes that faced television in the late Sixties and the early Seventies. When The Doris Day Show debuted it was a family comedy, one of a number that would debut in the late Sixties (The Brady Bunch and The Partridge Family were two others). It was also one in a long run of rural comedies (The Andy Griffith Show and The Beverly Hillbillies being the most popular). Unfortunately, for rural comedies, the networks had discovered demographics in the Sixites. It was not enough to know how many people were watching a TV series, now the networks wanted to know who was watching it. The Madison Avenue advertisers wanted shows that appealed to young urban professionals (what would come to be called "Yuppies" in the Eighties). Because of this, the networks started purging their schedules of any shows that appealed to rural or older audiences. ABC cancelled The Lawrence Welk Show. CBS went even further, cancelling nearly all of their rural comedies, some which were still getting very good ratings (Mabyerry R.F.D. was still in the top twenty). It was then wise for Doris Day to move her character and her sons to San Francisco with the third season. To have done otherwise may have well killed the show. By the 1972-1973 season, the family comedies that had debuted in the late Sixties were on their way out. Both The Partridge Family and The Brady Bunch would leave the air in 1974. Among the hit series of the early Seventies was The Mary Tyler Moore Show, so it made sense to turn Doris Martin into a single career woman. The Doris Day Show then reflects the changes that occurred in American television from 1968 to 1973 quite well. It went from a rural, family comedy to an urban, family comedy to a comedy about a single career woman.
I rather suspect that the The Doris Day Show is rather unique in televison history. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any shows that changed their formats nearly as often. In fact, I have to wonder if the final incarnation of The Doris Day Show should not be treated as a different show, but with the same title and the same name for the lead character! At any rate, the changes in format didn't seemed to hurt the series in the ratings, even if it confused me as a child...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
