Movie Moments LXXIV: Nolan Edition

Happy Christmas, Ellery! Not that time has any meaning anymore, so SamtsirhC YppaH or whatever. I've picked a trio of Nolan films to investigate and am looking forward to living 2022 like a matryoshka doll. Also, this is the possibly the closest my scholarly and fannish writing have ever been.



Previously, from the Oeuvre
Seen:
Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight, Inception, The Dark Knight Rises, Interstellar, Dunkirk, Tenet
Not Seen:
Following, Memento, Insomnia

What's the Deal
Whenever I think of Nolan, I hear, like, a basso profundo gong strike and a rattling perception of time. The Batman movies, of course, aren't as fluid as the others--comic books do time travel, but their modules are linear. Nolan's work isn't cheery--does anybody smile, ever--but it's not exactly morose, either. It's...ontological? Ontology leaves no room for merriment.

TV Tellings IV: The Chair

"Villains!" I shrieked, "dissemble no more!"

Sandra Oh playing the chair of an English department at a small liberal arts college? I had read nothing about this--I hadn't even watched a trailer--but even sight unseen, I could almost guarantee, pre-watch, three things:

1. I'm going to spend most of the watch screaming at the screen WRT academic politics and processes
2. They are going to get English, as a field, almost completely wrong
3. At least one professor is going to seem to be having an illicit and gross affair with a student

But Sandra Oh, y'know? Plus, as all my English colleagues know, this is pretty much all non-English academic people will ask about come the winter holidays.

Anyway, this is a first watch reactions sort of post. Spoilers for The Chair may abound. Also, I cuss a lot.

Logline:
Sandra Oh plays the chair of an English department at a small liberal arts college.

Apple TV+ Thoughts

Apple TV+ Thoughts Let me state, for the record, that I was super-annoyed I couldn't sign up for this before the launch date. Which is a bit of neat psychological marketing: The itch to get it done meant I was thinking about it a lot more. So I've got random spoilery thoughts on the four prestige-y shows they've got, and quick reviews of the other four exclusive shows.

• The Morning Show (three episodes watched)
  Everything about this show sings of the money spent on it. But between the uniformly super cast and then lack of an intrusive score (though, we need to talk about how on-the-nose that torch version of "Creep" was), it's also kind of not like a Sorkin show? And it wants us to think it's a Sorkin show. Except people talk slower. And the women aren't constantly belittled (I mean, they are, but only by the villainous characters).
  
  Crudup is pretty amazingly sharky while being glossily charming. Duplass is pretty amazingly sympathetic while being grumpily grumpy. Carrell is really good at being really awful. (I was legit wondering why they were sticking with a Mitch storyline, but then that scene with Martin Short happened in the third episode, and dang. Yeah, keep running with it, guys.)
  
  Witherspoon is spectacular, but I also have no patience at all for TV characters who are Very Earnest About Being Real Journalists. Because nobody does that, guys. So yeah: Witherspoon is great, but character Bradley makes no sense.
  
  Everyone is talking about how amazing Jennifer Aniston is in this role, and they should. I've always been a fan of hers, but I legit had no idea she could manage the precision she does with this character.
  
  Also: Alex naming Bradley as her new co-host at the end of the second episode is a fucking HBIC power move if I've ever seen one. Damn.
  
  Also also: The opening credits for this make no sense to me, but they also feel a lot like an Apple commercial, so.
  
  
  
• Dickinson (five episodes watched)
  This show doesn't quite know what it wants to be, but there are enough bits that work that I can sometimes ignore the tonal dissonance.
  
  Emily asking Death, in the first episode, when he will come for her, is a pretty bold thesis for a show that's pitching itself as the Amherst version of The OC.
  
  I sort of love how EVERYONE calls Emily out on being a rich white girl who doesn't productively contribute to society. (Look, she is a GENIUS, I love her poetry, but lots of folks can be geniuses AND ALSO wash the dishes once in a while.)
  
  This show is hella clumsy about all things race, ethnicity, and abolition. Henry deserves better than the Dickinson family, particularly.
  
  The random throwing-in of decade-old teen slang is pretty distracting--the casual speech and mannerisms already get the point across. The peppering of nonsense reeks of trying too hard.
  
  I am fascinated by how much this show thinks men are useless in a variety of different ways. Austin is dumb, but apparently extremely good at sexing up his fiancee Sue. George is in ugly Nice Guy territory, but he also seems to be super into supporting Emily's literary ambitions. Father Dickinson is awful and repressive, but also gets all weepy at the idea of his children leaving him. Sigh.
  
  Emily/Sue is a fun, furtive pairing, even though it is really unclear about how they navigate this relationship. But they can kiss alllll they want, and perhaps also dress up in tailored menswear. A lot.
  
  Anyway, Sue can Get It, and I respect the hell out of her. (It is also extremely disturbing and sad at the subtext that Sue is, in part, Getting It because she is destitute and the use of her body is what keeps her both somewhat happy and also fed. Like, she legit seems to enjoy sex with both Austin and Emily, but also, she has no money or place to live. Her Boston situation is straight-up horrifying.) She is bad at setting boundaries, but that seems to be the raison d'etre of Dickinson manor.
  
  In the first episode, goofy suitor George gazes at Emily and muses, "You are so weird. Why am I so attracted to you?" That is basically how I feel about this whole show.
  
  
  
• See (three episodes watched)
  
  
  I was afraid this was going to be super-ableist, with most everyone blind and the two sighted children being "chosen ones" or some such nonsense. And the chosen one nonsense is kind of there, but the show does a lot of work to show how folks have adapted really well. And Jerlamarel (the sighted children's sighted father) is super super super ableist, which is an interesting choice.
  
  This show is shot gorgeously.
  
  Okay, so, like, they give a kind of neat showing of how blind battle happens, BUT. Once battle is joined, how do they tell who they're fighting hand-to-hand? Like, at many points, one of the warriors just straight-up leaps into a group of enemy soldiers, and that way is not the best in terms of making sure you're clubbing the enemy as you move on. ALSO, they shout out strategic warnings to each other, which also doesn't make a ton of sense in terms of surprise attacks.
  
  (Note: The climactic battle in the third episode makes way, way more sense, takes advantage of the scenario, and is way, way cooler. And gory.)
  
  I dig that they rely a lot on "scentiers," ayuras (good hearing), and presages. Folks also are much more attuned to the meanings behind vocal variations.
  
  I dig that writing is once again a form of quipu--it's certainly a more robust form of record than braille.
  
  Baba Voss, punching that bear in the face does NOT make up for the fact that you only barely heard it coming.
  
  WHAT THE FUCK IS UP WITH THE SHADOW? WHY DOES EVERY VILLAGE HAVE A SHADOW? But the way they portray the Shadow is very much like...Ariel in The Tempest, I think. Eerie and graceful and always around, but never fully perceived. (Also, let's take a moment to pour one out for #WaywardSisters of #Supernatural.)
  
  Uh, Gether and his aunt? With the tongue? And the UGH. Those two suuuuuuuck.
  
  I cannot figure out Maghra's relationships. Baba Voss calls her "my love," but treats her mostly like a babymama? And she says Jerlamarel was a stranger to her, but she can totally predict and discern his intentions?
  
  I agree with Paris that the kids deserve the truth, but breaking it to them that they're adopted? Low blow, Paris. Low blow.
  
  Haniwa's growing up into a right snobby sociopath, isn't she? Like, mad with the power. Also, that box of books was not that big. How the hell do they know about the major industries of Pittsburgh?
  
  How is Queen Kane remaining queen? Like, I highly doubt she's maintaining a hydroelectric dam all by herself.
  
  So festivals are just one big fireside orgy? Cool.
  
  I have a lot of skepticism about the world-building here, but I do kind of want to see what happens next.
  
  
• For All Mankind (three episodes watched)
  I know very, very little about astronauts, but thanks to First Man, I at least have the context for the shift in timeline. (The fate of Apollo 1 was pretty much the best part of that movie.) A fear of taking risks makes total sense, but also, yeah, no wonder they didn't make it up faster.
  
  The political maneuvering mostly reminded me how awful behind-the-scenes government machinations were/are: Nixon, Kissinger, Operation Paperclip. Ugh. But also: Are RL congressional hearings ever so dramatic? Yeesh.
  
  "Lunar military outpost" sounds more ludicrous every time it's said aloud.
  
  I respect any woman whose idea of flirting is pretending to crash the biplane she's flying. Tracy is so much cooler than Gordo that it's sort of staggering.
  
  Also, Molly is hotter than the sun, and it's kind of ridiculous that everybody has to pretend she's not. All the fanfic about this show is just going to be Molly topping any and everybody in the program.
  
  "Moon maiden." Sigh. But also, I had no idea this Mercury 13 thing was a thing! WTF, America. Also, Hidden Figures notwithstanding, I feel like we haven't grappled enough with the idea that black women were the ones who did all the math for NASA.
  
  It was manipulative as hell, but I did, in fact, get teary at the women's rights montage.
  
  Anyway, YEAH, ladies in SPACE. And I do hope they get to the moon--even though that still hasn't happened in reality, SIGH.
  

And I figured I might as well take a look at the other exclusive offerings on hand, so:

• Helpsters (one episode watched--episodes are divided into two segments)
  What if you wanted to watch Sesame Street, but it just moved way too slow for you? Helpsters is here to sing you into a practical moral code! (It's been a while since I've watched kids' TV with my niece, but this seems pretty decent.)
  
  
• Ghostwriter (two episodes watched)
  A ghost takes over a bookstore and starts magicking fictional characters to life? This is the kind of show that, even though we watched it as kids, would continue to haunt (heh) us through adulthood. This feels like The Sarah Jane Adventures, actually. I might keep watching this one--and if it doesn't have a full-fledged fandom in a month, I will eat my tablet.
  
  
• Snoopy in Space (one episode watched)
  This feels very much like an extended recruitment video (less than ten minutes an episode) for young astronaut camp or something. In that it is charming, teaches me some astronomy, and leaves me with an intense desire to become an astronaut. Well done, Snoopy!
  
  
• Oprah's Book Club (one episode on offer so far)
  I'm really curious about how this is going to work, cross-platform. Will all the books get featured on Apple TV+, but the discussion with stay within the Oprah-owned kingdom? Will we have author interviews once a month? According to press, it seems like we'll have these every two months or so. It's nice, though: Apple has a store in Carnegie Library (huh) to use as a set, which is neat. In any case, it's a neat way to cap off a book selection by having an in-depth discussion with the author. (This time: Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Water Dancer.)
  

There's a documentary on offer right now--it looks pretty nice, but I figured it didn't count as TV in the same way.

Thoughts on Online Streaming

Despite having cable nowadays (when I switched internet services, I got cable service automatically), I find myself watching most of my TV online anyway, as it turns out that sans DVR, I am really, really bad at remembering to turn on the TV when it's time for a program to start. (Seriously, at least thrice in the past week, I have realized it was eight minutes past the time I meant to start watching TV.) So let us discuss the legal ways I watch TV via the internet!

• Hulu.com: This is my preferred method. The "subscription" option means the shows I want will pop up in my queue when they're available, and I usually know when they will stop being available. (This is not foolproof, as sometimes dates change and I discover when it's too late. This is probably due to behind-the-scenes contract changes, rather than Hulu being unreliable.) Most NBC, USA, SyFy, ABC, and FOX shows are streamed to Hulu, as well as a plethora of other things, including clips and promos and older movies, and the quality is decent. There is also a premium service, which is tempting, but I am not quite addicted enough to pony up for a monthly subscription.
• CWTV.com: All the shows on the CW, which are usually available a couple of days after original airing. They also tend to have handful of episodes available at once, so you can catch up on the past three or four episodes you've missed. On the downside, the quality is not as good as on TV, and the streaming is horrible, just horrible, no matter what speed internet I've used. Sometimes the audio will cut out, and then the video will run for a couple of minutes and then freeze as the audio catches up. It is often not worth pausing, because then the entire thing will freeze, forcing me to restart! Sometimes I get an endless buffering signal, and though the ads have not quite kicked in this year, last year I was subjected to long strings of repetitive promos. I am not opposed to commercials--they have to make their money, after all--but I am opposed to watching the same commercials a dozen times per episode.
• Comedy Central: I go directly to TheDailyShow.com and TheColbertReport.com to watch full episodes. They usually have a couple of weeks' worth of episodes available, the quality is pretty great, and ads are usually up-front, rather than during imposed breaks. Pausing/restarting is almost seamless.
• CBS.com: Most CBS shows are available--daytime, prime time, classic, AND late night--and the quality is great. While on rare occasions there are buffering problems, generally pausing/restarting is seamless, and there's a new feature now where, when you pause, the window will minimize and show an ad until you restart again. Also, unique to CBS as far as I've seen, the commercials often allow for elements of interactivity, wherein you take little quizzes, or select what "theme" of ad you'd like to watch, or even play a little game. A good use of the platform, I think.
• TNT.tv: While navigating the menu to get to the full episodes is a pain--it's a little counter-intuitive, I think, to have to go to the show, then full episodes, only to have to scroll through all the shows again--the quality is very good, and I didn't have any problems with buffering.
• TheWB.com: Lots of shows available, though usually not full seasons. It's not very HQ, and the buffering is sometimes a problem, but if you're looking for older favorites, it's worth checking this site out.
• Netflix: I don't use this often, mostly because I dislike the way the way the queue presents full seasons for streaming. (I can't explain it, honestly.) The quality is AMAZING, though, and you have lots of movies in addition to TV.
• ABC.com: In the past, I haven't been impressed with their streaming, as the quality was less than HQ and hiccuppy (both on ABC and for ABC Family), but when I watched the pilot of No Ordinary Family, the quality was much improved, almost comparable with CBS. It's a bit redundant, however, since most ABC shows are on Hulu anyway.
• Nick.com: The quality is decent, but the menus are interminable and difficult to navigate, and streaming problems do occur. Still, if you want an Avatar: The Last Airbender fix, this is a guaranteed place to find it.

Anyway! Those are all the streaming sites I've tried. Are there any others you'd like to recommend or anti-recommend?

Showrunners (Don't) Know Best

Y'know, I bet there is some really interesting meta (pro or fannish or somewhere in between) about the relationship between showrunner and show and audience, and how they interact, and thinky things like that. All I have are these lists: Showrunners I Want to Punch in the Face, Even Though I Love Their Shows

1. Ron Moore (Battlestar Galactica)
2. J.J. Abrams (Alias)
3. Aaron Sorkin (Sports Night, The West Wing, Studio 60)

Showrunners I Want to Force Feed Some Critical Theory Until They GET IT

1. Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse)
2. Shonda Rimes (Grey's Anatomy, Private Practice)
3. Amy Sherman Palladino (Gilmore Girls)
4. Eric Kripke (Supernatural)

I can't think of any others right now, but I am SURE there are more. And, alas, I can't think of any showrunner I want to give a hug and a high-five. Oh, maybe the dudes that did Avatar: The Last Airbender animated series. (Have they commented on the failure of the movie casting at all?)