The Crown

As I was wrapping up the series I realized Her Majesty has TOTES watched all ten hours of this show. How could she not?? It’s based on her actual life and the closed-door side of it we never get to see. Ne’er revealing or hypothesizing too much, the show reveals just the right amount of privacy, opulence, and drama. Buckingham Palace owns the last semblance of class, surely green lighting every move the show makes. The Palace takes these things seriously, I’m positive. One of the first things you notice in the show is the immaculate opening sequence. As the Hans Zimmer score builds, we see close ups of gold being forged and formed into some sort of royal artifact. The shots are so close, never zooming out and showing us a bigger picture of what has been built. The Crown follows this format – giving insider looks into the intimate lives of the Royals, never quite zooming out far enough to get the bigger picture – the picture we probably already know. Or the picture we can at least Google.

The Crown season one has spanned from flashbacks of the 1930’s to its present 1955. It begins on Elizabeth’s 1947 wedding day to Phillip and shows their marriage, her father’s death, and the subsequent beginning of her reign. The show follows her first few years as a clueless Queen, not quite knowing what she doesn’t know as she balances politics with parliament and simultaneous family decisions. Claire Foy is excellent at refraining from personality. I mean, I thought the queen was dull, but damn. This just certifies it. There are actual conversations on the show about how personality-less Elizabeth is. Her sister Margaret tends to outshine her, proving herself troublesome. Their accents are pure comedy in their poshy superior tone and inflects. I am told this is really how they talked. Which kind of makes me sick. The one comment my husband kept making as he overheard the show was how absurd their accents are. I mean, uhbsaid theee ahhksents ahh. It’s distractingly over the top. Elizabeth was written in the most inoffensive way possible. It’s almost frustrating. You want her to be bad, and she won’t be. You want her to be so so good, and she isn’t. If you looked up the Webstehh Dictionahhehh definition of boring-and-middle-of-the-ground-neutral, you’d see Claire Foy’s expressionless Queen Elizabeth face, garbed out in excess of brocade and white fur, with a crown so icy you’d get chills.

The show keeps the plots just-so enticing, insidious but never quite reaching scandal. The story is refrained. Just when you are expecting a drippingly dramatic scene, it takes the quintessential British turn – restraint and the shoving away of feelings. I feel this is a result of the actual tone the monarchy always takes. (Nothing to see here! Move along, move along.) The air of drama is carried by Hollywood-worthy big-budget visual grandeur and sophistication. Moments and shots reflect the seriousness of the crown in overly cinematic moves. There are shots that gave me goose bumps in their impressive display of imagery in a way that demands one’s emotion. The director brings the drama in this show, not the writer. There’s a slo-mo scene with pretty confetti falling from the sky, Her Majesty politely waving from a car to a roaring loving crowd, the music building, the tension peaking, and I’m like, ok, the shoe’s gotta drop. WHAT’S GONNA HAPPEN???? Is she gonna get rushed?? Is Phillip going to demand a divorce?? …..You know what happened? She ends up getting a shot injected in her face from a spasmed over-stressed smile muscle. HAHAHAHA #RoyaltyProbs amirite??? See what I’m saying, here? A standout moment is when her grandmother approaches the Elizabeth-in-mourning from The King’s passing for the first time since inheriting the crown, and her own grandmother curtsies to her, cementing the importance of her new role. One of my favorite moments of the show. Emotion is built from the crew, not necessarily the cast or writers.

Allegedly this is supposedly Netflix’s most expensive TV show to date. And I believe it. I actually think they could have filmed in Buckingham, that’s how luxurious the show looks. Sweeping hallways as wide as a townhouse, classic gilded artwork from floor to ceiling. Personally I hate the fifties, and this show makes it look so glamorous. With their clunky phones hosting forbidden phone calls, cigarettes casually smoked in down-laden beds, silken bespoke Diorish silhouettes, and hair and makeup with the precision of…well….royalty, honestly, the era is inviting and drool-worthy. And makes me yearn for the return of proper evening gloves. (de la Renta, Carolina, I SEE YOU.)

Matt Smith shines as Prince Phillip, his character offering most of the personality, mischievousness, and cheeky side to the seriousness of the throne. He does so well since he has a fun character to play. Same as John Lithgow, who plays a wonderful Winston Churchill. While the character is over the top, Lithgow embodies him so well it’s astounding. One problem I’ve found is the debate to sit through the show or Google what happened. A funny problem to have – wondering if you want the show to cinematically reveal their interpretation of history to you or to spoil it and ask your mom if Princess Margaret really was carrying-on with the married staff member– GASP! Unclutch those pearls, dahhhhling. It’s not quite a spoiler.

The Crown is a Netflix original. Grab a cuppa and sit frew it, dehh. It’s well wuhff it.

Mascots

Mascots is a certified quality controlled creation from the Christopher Guest classic-making machine. The film is about various working professional and non-professional Mascots coming together for the annual international Mascot competition. Hilarity ensues. As Guest’s fifth entry into the mockumentary genre almost entirely owned by him, Mascosts gives fans exactly what they are expecting. Almost to a fault……..

I am extremely partial to mockumentaries, two of them tie for my all time favorite comedies - Drop Dead Gorgeous and Best In Show – with Guest directing the latter. The genre is so ripe for comedy. Making fun of something with a sense of self-awareness, being able to riff off something in its purist form – a documentary perspective to bring reality and truism to the forefront. It creates a rich world for the actors to play in, often improvising and not quite knowing what will come out of their mouth but fully enveloped in the characters they’ve created. (I’m gonna play the Improv card here, I competed on my high school team for two years, SO I KNOW, MK? IIIIIII KNOW.)

Somehow I wasn’t sure what to expect with Mascots, but as I watched it, I was embarrassed at my own lack of expectation. This film is another page out of the Christopher Guest ad-lib book. Seriously, try it: “The film is about a rag-tag group of people who all have (fill in quirky interest) in common. Some have a (fill in regional dialect) and each are from all over the country or world. Most filmgoers see their interest as silly or absurd, but it’s always taken very seriously by the characters. Except for (fill in character) who doesn’t see what all the fuss is about. Add some thoroughly professional and hilarious improvisational comedians. Drizzle with a few physical ailments throughout, (two left feet, one testicle) Sprinkle some delicious LGBTQ characters to serve.”

Well, ok, that somehow turned out more like a recipe but I think you smell what I’m steppin in here. Guest’s work is now predictable and is always created from his blue-ribbon winning recipe. Even down to the shots, camera movements, rhythm of dialogue and plot points it feels much like his other films. With little deviation from these oft used ingredients, Guest has perfected his own form of mockumentary and certified laughs within his self-built parameters. I did find myself laughing, the actors know how to do comedy. I meeeaaaaannnnnn, clearly this isn’t their first rodeo AMIRITE? We’ve seen rodeos 1-4. We know what they’re capable of. Guest has refined and defined the genre.

I guest (seewhatididthere??) what I’m saying is I’ve seen this movie before. Many times. But it will make me laugh every time I see it. Mascots is on Netflix.

What’s your favorite mockumentary?

Westworld

:2012 - University of Utah - Intro to Film Class - Daytime:

Teacher: ‘Ok, so who can give me a theme to Blade Runner?

:A self important, smug, know-it-all Julie Hofer juts her hand up:

Julie: ‘Having the ability to change one’s nature is what makes one human.”

Teacher: ‘……I’d buy that for a dollar.’

I anticipated this show so much I literally dreamed about telling my mom about it. I’m a nut, I know, and I have no life. So when a one-in-a-million show like this taunts and teases for months, apparently I dream about it. Hashtagthisismylifenow. I wanted to write about it immediately but heeded the wise words of my blog advisor, my watching partner, my husband, and refrained until I saw three episodes. (He literally just told me “you should still wait.” No, now is the time.) This was a good choice. Lemme explain why.

Westworld is an HBO show based off of the Michael Crichton 1973 film. Westworld is an old-west themed amusement park completely inhabited by androids so technologically advanced visitors and viewers are never entirely sure which ones they are. For a pricey entrance fee, guests can immerse themselves in a real live gun-slinging, whore-laying, ale guzzling, butte laden Wild West fantasy. Visitors also have the option to choose between a white hat or a black one….becoming a goodie or a baddie. The time on the show is divided between happenings in the park and the behind the scenes workings and mechanics of it all.

As the Westworld gets reset every night, androids are brought in and stripped nude in the glassy blackened research and repair section of the park. Surely the setting is a visual metaphor of feigned transparency with simultaneous shrouded mystery. This creates some beautiful imagery. They are questioned and analyzed by the lead programmer to determine their intelligence, thought process, and need in tweaks in their mental coding. This creates some incredible performances. It’s all very slick and sexy. As the series was first introduced, it was clear we would witness an evolution in the once obedient robots. As their intelligence receive delicate altars and changes, unwelcomed memories gradually get created, unpredictable behavior starts to manifest, sentient beings start to form. The androids begin to create a life that was never intended for them. They begin to push their subordinate nature away, thus creating human tendencies……It is honestly THRILLING. Damn Crichton, amirite??

When I saw the first two episodes I was eager to start writing about it, but I couldn’t, because I wasn’t seeing anything unexpected yet. I kept wondering aloud why there wasn’t enough meat on it yet, but now I know why. The show was being set up and basic questions were being answered. There was nothing really of note that I could write about without really spoiling anything. After the third episode, I got GIDDY. It dives into the psychology of the androids and the surprising actions they make.

Remember back in the time of floppy disks, when we couldn’t binge watch any and every show on earth?? Well HBO, the sadists, still live by this antiquated way of life. They still release a single episode a week. And for that I am grateful. Do you remember what anticipation feels like? Cliffhangers at the end of an episode? No, you don’t, you TV glutton. But wait – it’s HBO, “it’s not TV.” We have forgotten what delay of gratification is. HBO has built tension and curiosity in keeping with the archaic tradition of making us wait, while other television has done the opposite, making binge-watching the new normal. So, I guess, it really isn’t TV…..

We have reached a point now where the show builds more questions than answers. What is the robot skin made of, exactly? Where does this park reside, and how much does it cost to get in? How many gallons of blood do they have on stand-by? How sleep deprived are the graveyard shift park re-setters? Who precisely of the workers at the park are actually also droids? (DEFINITELY SOME.) How do bullets not work on guests but are only effective on hosts? Why isn’t it obvious to them that keeping a horde of cyborgs in the basement is building an army practically begging for an uprising?

Have YOU been watching Westworld? What kind of existential questions has it raised in yourself? Do you feel differently watching a show that comes out once a week instead of being able to binge it? Do you find yourself pondering it more poignantly?

Sunday is now Funday. Because it’s Westworld day. Thank you, HBO.

The Right Place at The Right Time – How a Breakout Role Defines a Career

Wikipedia.com defines a breakout role thusly: “A breakthrough role, also known as breakout role, is a term in the film industry to describe the performance of an actor or actress in a film or television show which contributed significantly to the development of their career and beginning of critical recognition. Such a moment in an actor's career may often occur some time after they begin acting as their roles become more substantial. Often a breakthrough role is a significant increase in importance in the actor's part in the film moving up from a minor character or extra to one of the leading cast, or a "high impact" role in a film which has mainstream success and results in the widespread recognition or popularity of the actor.” I can’t help but think the way we perceive talent and star power is hugely connected to an actor’s initial success – the moment of critical recognition as having talent to keep one’s eye on, garnering attention from either the masses or someone important as being “someone to watch”.  I want to explore this idea with a few actresses, because what kind of American would I be if I wasn’t conscious or subconsciously buying into the draw of the male gaze?? We keep “pitting women against each other” because it’s entertaining, and whether they admit it or not, they love it. ANYWAY.

Jennifer Lawrence is a great actress, yes, but would we believe that if her breakout role wasn’t in Winter’s Bone (2010), where she played a destitute stricken gritty teenager gutting squirrels and searching for her meth making father in the back woods of Missouri? What if her breakout role was actually (what we would all agree is) Blake Lively’s breakout role, the over eager and flirtatious soccer star in Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants (2005)? Would Jennifer Lawrence become a David O. Russell darling had she played Blake’s horny jock pre nose job? (YOU KNOW Blake’s nose is post op. Google it.) Methinks not.

When you’re interested in an acting career, one of the most common phrases you’ll hear is “being in the right place at the right time.” Maybe Blake was too busy getting her nose done to go to the casting call of Winter’s Bone, but she either didn’t audition for it, or the director wasn’t interested in casting her because of her previous role(s). Do you see what I’m getting at here? Other than Blake’s nose? (I’m done with the nose jokes, I promise. LUV U BLAKE.) The director of Winter’s Bone presumably wanted an actress who no one was too familiar with, who we could buy into as being rough and tough and Sundance-ready.

After Jennifer proved her acting chops in a meaty role that garnered her an Oscar nom, she eventually moved on to more Serious Actress films including Russell’s Silver Lining’s Playbook (2012), American Hustle (2013), and Joy (2015) - all of which received rave reviews and various noms on her part. Let’s not forget X-Men and The Hunger Games franchises. Yes, Jennifer was good, but could Blake have played these roles just as well? Theoretically. Arguably. In Lawrence’s latest Vogue cover story, she mentions being relieved at having finished her contracted franchises. She understood that she had become a new “tour de force” (UGH. So overused, that phrase) and wanted to hand pick her roles accordingly. I was a fan of Lawrence until I read her story. She came off as conceited, snobby, and a bit too self-important. The actress who was once endearing has tipped over the line of too try-hard. I suppose it was about time, it’s pretty much inevitable when a star is so upfront about themselves. Their likability is almost always going to have a downfall. (In regards to likability/downfalls - Amy Schumer also comes to mind. And Anne Hathaway. See the pattern here? It has to do with reproductive organs. Can I be sexist as long as I acknowledge I’m being sexist? No? I digress.)

Meanwhile, Blake became the new Cali girl beach-babe, and starred in the CW’s high school version of Sex and the City – Gossip Girl (2007). This role simultaneously solidified her hotness, Barbie bod, unrealistically perfect hair, and mediocre acting chops. Although critics have cited her Elvis and Anabelle (2007) role as being her breakout, Imma go ahead and assume you’d all agree with me in saying you’ve never even heard of it. Lively attempted to flex her cRaFt when she played a gritty Bostonian in Ben Affleck’s The Town (2010) – her moments where both anticipated and forgettable. SIGH. A swing and a miss, Blakey. She then starred in Green Lantern (2011) with her future (and my future 2^nd) husband, Ryan Reynolds. The film was a flop, and you already knew that. Did ANYONE see it?? No I didn’t think so. (I just caught parts of it while I switched between that and the last debate and MY GOODNESS they were just as bad as each other.) Lively then ironically replaced Lawrence’s character in Oliver Stone’s thriller Savages (2012). I haven’t seen it, but I’ve been wanting to. I am prepared to yet again be let down by Blake and watch her get seriously out acted by her costars – John Travolta, Benicio del Toro, Salma Hayek……I believe this is an actress who is given second, third, and forth chances to show her skill and can never quite commit to ‘being ugly’. Can you imagine her playing a role like Charlize Theron’s in Monster? I can’t. If she were trying to sell that to me, I wouldn’t buy it. But she doesn’t sell that, she sells the Pretty Girl. It’s what she likes to sell. And I know plenty of people who buy it…..I saw The Shallows this summer, and Blake was yet again making a pointed effort to play a more challenging role who shifts from moments of screaming in unimaginable pain to delivering dialogue for the sake of dialogue: “NOT TODAY (SHARK).” Even in this bikini-clad shark attack thriller, Blake managed to maintain a certain level of prettiness. It’s like she’s unable to make herself look ugly. Or she’s just THAT attractive. I just couldn’t take her seriously.

 It’s pretty apparent to me that an actress is only as good as her opportunities, characters, and skills, and the delicate balance of those three is what defines a career path and certain set of chops. In my opinion, a career is established thusly. It takes a lot of effort and convincing to turn around one’s star persona and abilities. This seems more likely when one is shifting from one genre to another, like comedians who do drama well. Matthew McConaughey is someone who has surprised me with his overnight switch from fluffy rom-com stardom to serious actor with real, true talent – prompting critics to concot the term ‘McConaissance’. He just needed to get the chance to play those roles. Not trying to be sexist, but I can’t think of a female actress who has had a similar career path – flipping it on its head and defying what we thought she was capable of. Anyone come to mind? Or is it that women aren’t given these shots? Charlize Theron has shown her talent is ever spanning. And Meryl Streep comes to mind but I’m not familiar enough with her entire career……

I know the things I’ve said here are sweeping generalizations, but……what do YOU think? Are actors actually capable of playing many levels of roles? Are our opinions of their abilities solely based on their career paths?

High Maintenance

I’m a huge sucker for vignettes, and that’s literally all this show is. High Maintenance gives the viewer glimpses into modern, humorous, everyday New Yorker lives strung together with The Guy as the thread – a charming (and SUPERBLY acted) bicycle-riding marijuana deliveryman. The basic plot serves as the perfect vessel for diversity and realism. From a Pakistani American college girl who’s weed sources have dried up to a Chinese couple collecting cans on the daily to a foppish gay guy with his exhaustingly droney basic bitch roommate to a middle aged couple and their eager swinging party goers, the show has limitless stories to tell. It could literally go on forever with new characters and people to put on display. The show is an eye opener for those still waving the Reefer Madness flags – ICYMI, everyone smokes weed. Like, everyone.

The show started out as a web series (which HBO also has via their watching sources,) in poignant, neat little less-than-twenty-minute vacuum-sealed packages. Since being picked up by the self proclaimed ‘it’s not TV’ TV, the original production value is nearly indiscernible from the wealthy television giants when watched side by side. These extended episodes HBO is producing have so far done both a service and disservice to the show. I believe I’ve seen three now, and there are two hits and one miss. The show does well when it splits the time between two vignettes, and does less well when the tale is told through the eyes of a dog. Good storytelling risk, though!! Good on rolling paper, not so much in execution, methinks. There seems to be decidedly more diversity in the HBO episodes versus the original web series. Surely a choice encouraged by the money-backers. And I applaud and encourage it!! Representation! Diversity! Did I already say diversity? More diversity!! Please!

As I mentioned before, Ben Sinclair as The Guy is a standout performance. Maybe that’s because he’s the character you see the most of…maybe because as a weed dealer his job is to be a people person. Or maybe it’s because Sinclair has an incredible comedic sense and is simply an excellent actor. The Guy has a fluffy beard and teddy bear qualities. The success of his business thrives on his affability. Where the stories ride up and down and all around, Guy’s character works as a shoulder to cry on or advice to hear from – and he has the best position to be in – as soon as things get weird he excuses himself out! That’s another thing – so many times I winced with expectation waiting for the stories to become overly painful, for moments of utter horror and cringeyness. Those moments always almost come-to, but this determined comedy never lets it happen. THANK YOU, High Maintenance!

The humor lies in the writing, genuine situational conflict, hilarious authenticity, and impressive acting chops unsurprisingly plucked from the deep acting pool that is New York City. High Maintenance is satisfying in its casual display of everyday pot smoking. The herb becomes a non-issue in this honest catalogue of people next door. The show threatens to be a dramadey, never quite reaching melodrama, always attaining el-oh-elz.

It’s such a great show, people. One of my current faves. Go check out High Maintenance on HBO.