True patriot love, in all thy sons command

Here is a case a bit long in the can now - this is a story broken some time ago, but it's been carrying on for a while thanks to a court case related to some threats uttered by a parent towards the principal at the heart of this storm. Catch up here and here.

Canada's national identity, and specifically the way in which we are inclusive of the traditions, practices and habits of our incredibly multicultural population, is of great interest to me. A quick perusal of the comments left by readers of these stories reveals a very bipolar set of attitudes in this country; be a Canadian or get out, or else be whatever you are and Canada will accomodate. Those arguments form the hard extremes but it's the softer, stickier middle in which we find reality, made up of all the players trying like hell to make sense of who we are in a rapidly changing world.

Canada, unlike the United States, is a country which I understand to have a rich tradition of immigration that we acknowledge. While our neighbours to the south leave out the 'u' from 'neighbour' and leave out identity other than 'American', we are more inclusive of heritage that isn't realy ours. Mine is Scottish for example - it's the answer people want when they ask you where you're from, you see. I'm not from there, but my mother is and Canada isn't really a place you can be from just yet - right?

It's cheeky, indeed. But everyone in my generation - by which I mean first generation - is complicit in this lack of identity, and it's going to change one way or another. Canada is a young country, and part of growing up is figuring out who you are - a process not lacking for drama and strife.

And so we are party to these conflicts, Mr. Millet's a prime example. What's a guy to do in a country such as this, but try to accomodate everyone? It's an approach that's found enemies in the more traditional, who value practices like the singing of the anthem as symbols. As some of our symbols have already fallen by the wayside - the Lord's Prayer was a change lamented, too - then those who find them to be crucial to our identity will fight to keep them. And it's their right to. It was also Millet's right to make a decision he felt was in the best interest of his community. It was the right of parents to level complaints at the decision, and so on, in a fashion that overall represents a healthy, mature dialogue.

No one had a right to stand up in parliament, either in ignorance or definance of fact, state that Millet had banned outright the anthem from his school. No one had a right to email and telephone Millet to issue death threats. And Bradley Howland did not have the right to walk into Millet's office and threaten to beat him senseless in the school parking lot. But all these things have happened now, and this is the price we pay for being confused as a ntion about who we are. I should say it's the price Millet has paid - his days of being a principal are, at least for the moment, done.

For the record, though I personally take issue with anyone who wants to live in this country and yet doesn't want to make themseles a part of the Canadian community, I don't feel Millet acted in a way that was not patriotic. The opposite is true, I think, because one thing that has made up the reality of this nation has been it's multiplicty of voices, and Millet was doing his best to address them all. Still, mother was right - you can't please everyone.

In some cases, the people who arrive to live here in Canada have come from wildly difficult circumstances. The rest of the world not being like Canada, I'm sure it's an attractive option to come to a place where you can be Canadian in title and remain anything else in practice. But this is a way of living in Canada that should be carefully thought on. That way of thinking will never foster the maturity of a nation - and we have difficult times ahead as we struggle with the question of where to draw the line in our 'tossed salad' population. I would never advocate the States' melting pot scenario, but their approach is not lacking for spirit, even if it is lacking perspective.

My personal opinion is that some traditions should be held up as the symbols they are - the national anthem perhaps being one of the most important. It's a song and verse that exists to be sung in unity, has lines about unity, about inclusion. In this context, it is being sung or at least heard by children, who, whether their parents are from Canada or not, are attending school in Canada, the nation furnishing their education - a right guaranteed in this nation to all children.

So no matter where you're from, even if you're not a Christian and you're not totally sure about that 'God keep our land' line, sing the damn anthem, because glorious and free is what this nation is, and you don't need to have a crucifix on your wall to wish it kept that way.

Some people living in this country have to be told 'no' once in a while. It's not a vindictive 'no', and it's not a divisive or restricting 'no'. But, no, you cannot send your kinds to public school and insist they don't sing our national anthem because your religion prohibits it. No, you cannot tell me it isn't a Christmas tree, etc. This is one of the most tolerant, accepting nations in the world, but Canada, never being able to say no, will become nothing if we can never insist that we are something. We are a nation. And if you live here, be a Canadian. We welcome you. And you in turn might welcome others by having diversity in heritage as your common ground.

I hope everyone does contemplate this from time to time. It's tough to live next to the cultural dominance of the United States, to be a Commonwealth member of the Queen's maternal United Kingdom, and to have such a multitude of voices within our own borders - and still know what we want to see when we look in the mirror.

District 9

Earlier this week I had the chance to check out G.I. Joe over at the AMC. I think Rebecca and I agreed in the end that it was fun (and funny). I got exactly what I wanted from that picture, which was mindless, geeky entertainment. Watching District 9 within days of of that other film, though ... has given me sci-fi whiplash.

District 9 is a complex, intelligent, visceral, disrtubing film. It is emotionally self-aware, historically self-aware, and does what all great sci-fi does - it tells a story connected essentially to our humannity and hinges that story on something that doesn't really exist. It's great what-if material, so in my mind it sits very nicely next to Sunshine and Eternal Sunshine as cinema that looks deeply at human beings by way of a far-fetched premise. Children of Men comes to mind also, but that film didn't move me to discomfort as much as this one did, and that's saying something.

Over at AICN, Harry Knowles has hyperbolized a bit by glazing over mention of two of the other films above to claim that District 9 is the first great sci-fi of this new millenium. I think that's hyperbole, at any rate. Any of the three above are great in my eyes, and they're all remarkably different. District 9 is without a doubt the ugliest exploration of the human heart, however.

It isn't that there are no virtues in the frame. But the characters (the human ones, anyway) of this picture are mostly vile. And mostly self-interested. Ignorant. Power-hungry. Just plain stupid. And stupidity, even, in this film is depicted as shockingly dangerous and evil. The plot here unfolded to leave me embarrassed to be a human. The aliens, who live throughout a slum outside Johanesburg in their own filth to be ruled by gang law and who eat cat food for lack of a better option, come out looking far better. It's a comparison that just doesn't sit right.

I don't want to break down plot because I found myself in the rare position of watching this film without trailers and press coverage having ruined the overall story. It's how you should watch it to.

Mention should be made of first-time feature director Neill Blomkamp and his deft control of every aspect of this film. It turns on a dime so many times that I had no idea where we would head next. The effects were flawlessly integrated, and the action was tightly accomplished without ever being confusing. Impressive for doc-style shooting.

Also, first-time actor Sharlto Copley provides the most unlikely and well-performed protagonist that I can currently think of. Never have I so HATED a character before and yet been completely willing to follow him along as the film moves forward.

Some people will probably dislike District 9, but that's alright. It really isn't for everyone. It's great, but it's sci-fi, and it's brilliant but it's unpleasant (to put it lightly) much more than seldom. If you can stomach it, though, prepare your brain and glue your eyes to the screen. It's no G.I. Joe.

Nightmares are Upside-Down Fairy Tales

SPOILERS about DOLLHOUSE ahead:

It's been a while since I've written anything here, since not every episode of television I've watched has riveted me for a while. Until this week's Dollhouse that is. By the way, if you haven't seen it yet, get on out of here and go watch it (then come back, obviously). Fringe has been good, very good even, other Dollhouse eps have been good, Terminator's done, so is BSG, Lost has been, well, Lost.

Seriously, SPOILERS. Biggest spoiler of the season ... probably, I mean maybe the finale will top it, but we'll see. It's just one shot I'm talking about, but I'll get to that down a bit.

Seriously, I like what Whedon and company do with their metaphors, symbolism, plot parallels and so on. I like that they flip things completely on their ears and that in this show, blood seems to come out every time they do it. It's frightening, the world of Dollhouse. I thought about comparing the complete limbo of conventional morality in this show to that in Battlestar, but this is a far more decadent animal. The characters in BSG all got pushed to great heights of moral utilitarianism, doing the best they could in a situation that threatened the extinction of every human being alive. But not Dollhouse. Those stakes don't exist here, in fact ... I don't know what the stakes are having just re-read that.

In Dollhouse, so far the greatest risks have been of losing a favourite character, perhaps, or if you want to get really grand, the technology on showcase has considerable threat if you consider that it could (and has) been used against people's will. But they have complicated all the other stances. Apparenly, the dolls are volunteers, and they get paid (somehow) when their stint is done. But they have illustrated, without really getting very grand with the stakes at all this week, just how dangerous the Dollhouse is.

I was feeling apprehensive watching the top of this week's episode because I had read a synopsis stating that Alpha would reveal himself. Now, everyone who's seen a horror film knows, if you build suspense that hinges on an unseen threat, you'd better make that threat materialize in a scary, credible way. A lot or horror films and tv screw this up. I think Dollhouse just did the exact opposite. It's easy to lose your grip on what this show is - it's sometimes a detective story, drama, sci-fi, action, thriller, and so far, horror only as an afterthought or, yes, a threat. So when Alan Tudyk suddenly walked right at the camera and viciously cut into Victor's face - having spent the rest of the episode aping an agoraphobic envoronmental geek, the threat was about as credible as anything I've ever seen. And that was the shot I was talking about.

The turnaround in tone was so abrupt, it was as though you were watching a PG-rated cop drama, where people say darn and heck, and suddenly it becomes an R-rated psychological thriller in which a simple break in becomes an assault, a rape, even. I was scared shitless.

I've had some trouble with the show, partly because I don't think Dushku is up to the task (that would challenge the very best actors out there), partly because of the aformentioned multi-genre free for all that places in the show, like the dolls, in constant identity flux. But I want to know where this goes and I pray FOX lets us find out for more than one episode forward.

And finally, as though it wasn't clear enough: I always knew I liked Alan Tudyk. I knew that because I liked Wash in Firefly, and even that bit part in Knocked Up. But Christ. In what must have amounted to about 3 minutes of screen time at the end of the episode, he blew the goddamn shoes of every other character in this show. Later this week, I gather he'll be back, and we'll see if he can keep that fever pitch of absolute psychotic villany up on high. Personally, I expect he can.

Adventureland!

My best guess about the nature of growing up is that you screw up until you know better. Which is a strong argument for the notion that no one is ever done growing up. Adventureland is not really a comedy, in the same way that your youth is not a comedy. There are definitely funny moments, people, situations, but it isn't a comedy at all. It just is what it is. Which makes Adventureland, to me anyway, a lot more rewarding to watch than a film where the overarching goal is to make the audience laugh all the time. Sometimes, comedy isn't the only part of growing up.

But damn if it isn't funny a lot, anyway. Jesse Eisenberg reprises a position he did very well with in The Squid and the Whale by looking to the wrong people for male role-modelling. Ryan Reynolds personifies that guy who is good only at talking to girls (but not staying with them) and stands to complicate the life of Eisenberg's James Brennan. Because James likes Em, and Em is kind of lost right now, and Reynolds' Mike Connell is where she's holding herself during that confusion. James really likes Em, actually, and she likes him back, but you know how it goes. You have to do the wrong thing first.

James, having been forced to work through his summer at a demeaning amusement park job, leads us through the torchered, ridiculous life of young people who have no idea where their headed, or if they do, no means to get there. It's a classic stuck in the mud situation. Most of the people in this film are depressingly working through it all, but witty and self-preserving enough not to let it completely obliterate their self-worth.

The funny thing about watching James is that as much as you want him to get the girl (I mean, I did, and I suspect every other guy watching the film did, but I haven't gotten a girl's take on Em yet), more than that, you want him to grow up and get past the young dramatics. Which, wonderfully, Adventureland does not romanticize or condemn. It just is, pretty unembellished, the way you feel about being young and totally clueless about how to handle your situation.

Everyone on cast makes it completely genuine to watch. If you're a fan of Twilight, then pack it in now, because this is the role Kristen Stewart should actually be proud of. Esisenberg turns his vulnerability believably into shades of confusion, anger and care, and does it in a measured, understated way. Reynolds shows up to fill in a completely unappealing character, and that deserves a nod. Bill Hader and Kristin Wiig turn in surprisingly custodial roles, doing their parts proud without chewing up the scenery, a restraint likely due to Greg Mottola.

And I have saved Mottola for last - he's due a ton of credit for making a film about young people dealing with their coming of age baggage completely watchable and enjoyable. It must be hard to play this kind of story to a genuine note when every scene likely pulls towards melodrama. Bravo.

'My Name is Jonas' screening applauded, alcohol implicated

TORONTO

Fans and well-wishers gathered at the Trash Palace Saturday night for a premiere screening of 'My Name is Jonas', a short film from the creators of 2007's 'The Birds and the Bees'. Sticks and Stones Films hosted the event, showcasing their latest work.

"I had four beers before I left the house," said director Andrew Niblo. "I'm introducing a film with this kind of subject matter to friends and family, and yeah, I need to be dipping into the deep end."

'Jonas' star Mitchell Rathgeb was on hand to answer questions about the origins of his character's story, which revolves around a young man plagued by addiction to masturbation.

"I was at Drew's place, drinking beers before we got started, and he left me up here to explain everything, which is horrifying. I actually hate him," said Rathgeb.

Audience members reacted well to the film, and to the blooper reel screened immediately afterward. Sales at the bar skyrocketed each time a cast or crew member was expected to speak to the audience.

Sticks and Stones anticipates the filming of a new short in the coming months, after some brief time off. Editor Matthew Mollon particularly expressed the need for rest.

"Drew wanted me to make a website or something, I punched him in the mouth though. He's out back," said Mollon.

Co-star Andy Wong was unavailable for comment, but sources inform us he had taken at least 3 different types of narcotic cold remedies. He was discovered later Saturday night attempting to sleep on a fire hydrant.

Sticks and Stones expects to launch their new website in the coming weeks, pending employee sobriety.

Of mice and other obscenely cute things

During the past few days, I have been unable to focus, my attention being somewhat divided between several different things. I could have said three different things, but I honestly thought there was at least one other thing. Apparently it doesn't take that much to distract me.

Anyhoo. While my brain gets pulled in multiple directions, I invite you to discover, as I did earlier today, the funniest thing ever. Or at least today. I could find something funnier tomorrow, but chances are slim.

Basically, if you've ever looked at an adorable animal before, and just thought, 'oh god, I want to just ... punch this cute as shit little whatever in the FACE rather than have to endure its overwhelmingly adorable presence', well, you'll see.

Until later. Don't anyone forget about Saturday night. It's going to get silly.

I can barely see straight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcJn5XlbSFk

Now, I'd be the first to point out that no intelligent person should take Fox News all that seriously. I know, I know. But wow. Just wow.

My first reaction to this was to go through this segment point and point and go bat shit insane by the end, hoarse with rage and tired from shaking my fist. But no. That's ridiculous. It's a lot easier to just point out that the overarching premise of this kind of commentary is so completely opposite to the way I look at the world, that trying to dissect it would be a waste.

These people stand behind an idea of American identity, one that is not only perverse, but inaccurate. I won't get into the bit about how Canada has joined the lazy Europeans in their cowering behind the might of America, because I think someone else covered their flawed ideology much better.

Somewhere near the top, one of these fine conveyors of factual information made light of the mounties - and sir, while we do in fact have police officers here in the savage north, I'll grant you that assumption since it doesn't hurt my argument - and boasts that in America, cops wear bullet-proof vests and drive around in heavily armoured cars.

Well, you know what, man? Thank god! It's bloody lucky for your cops, and really for all of you, to be living in a nation where law enforcement officers have to behave as cautiously as the military. Yes, that's something to be proud of. I'll bet the mounties wish they could get off their horses and get shot at just like your boys in blue, right?

I choose to believe that people like this don't represent the greater identity of your country, Americans. Up here, there's obviously going to be some blowback - but what I really hope is that there's some down there, too. It might show some sentiments that are a bit more neighbourly.

Battlestar Galactica: The End

First thing's first, if you haven't finished watching the series, don't read on. Some of you I've tagged here because you're done now, others because you'll be done soon. But if you aren't done, haven't even started, and / or ever intend to watch this show, go now and don't let the spoilers in. They are many and they are large.

Battlestar Galactica is a show that turns a lot of people off just by its title. Despite the wisdom overhanging that one best examine contents and not packaging, I can still sort of get it. It's a dorky name, really. When you say it to people they give you that look. You know the one, if you're into nerdy things you get it a lot. It's the same look you might get when you tell people that you spend your evenings reading comic books or if you're overheard arguing about which Star Trek captain is best. It's hard to characterize the look, because the people giving it range in their judgments from merely perplexed to utterly put off. Nerdy things aren't for everyone. But the packaging is key. Battlestar is packaged in an epic, space-faring, guns blazing, aircraft carrier dramatic vessel. That's what the vessel is, in fact. They're space planes, but it's all a moot point. The contents of that package, though obscured by the busy scenery, are totally and essentially human. Ron Moore and company didn't seem to lose sight of that, either, because as the show wrapped up Friday night, the tech and the toys and the tinsel were stripped away in great thick layers to reveal the last verse in a long poem about people.

It's a good thing the showrunners got themselves clear about how to wrap it up, too, because there were not many places left to go after 4 years of humanity with its back firmly pressed to the wall.

Billions dead, survivors numbered in the tens of thousands? Check.

A faster, smarter enemy hunting down those few left running with ruthless efficiency? Check.

Everyone's compromised, placed in impossible situations? Check.

Morality's gone out the window? Check.

Nukes, angels, murder, visions, internment camps, a black market, pregnancy (interspecies, no less), religion, about 1000 bullets fired for every human left alive, Gaeta lost a leg, Tigh lost an eye, Helo accidentally cheated on his wife, and President School Teacher had cancer since day one. Oh and five of the crew were cylons all along, but they found out because of 'All Along the Watchtower'. I'm sure that's every nerd's favourite song, now.

Yeah. I wasn't sure how they could really push that envelope any further. But I underestimated the folks behind the curtain. The finale saw the breaking of Galactica's back, but by god, did she earn it. The central plot point of assaulting the cylon colony was taking, by my watch, less time out of the episode that I had thought. So with a substantial chunk of episode left, the ships were safely orbiting earth, and all of a sudden it's clear that the only place left for this show to go is back. Way back. Not shockingly, the circular story catches up to eat its own tail, and we get (mostly) the closure that we need. Ships flown into the sun, and a blank slate for civilization, and it's over. Assuming it doesn't happen again in 150,000 years or so.

I'm proud to be a fan of the show after all is said and done. It's certainly one of the best finales I've ever seen, but not everyone is going to agree with me on that one, I just know it. The biggest reason will be that while the show certainly ended, it didn't really tie up every nagging question with a lovely red bow. I wasn't expecting as much, but some were, and I'm sad for them. It occurred to me as the last minutes rolled by that Galactica was telling a fable and not a strictly literal story. Those loose ends belong, therefore to the departments of faith and plot contrivance, both of which, as fans of this show, you should be completely aware by now.

I'm proud, indeed, to be able to stand by my usual synopsis of the show, its ending not contradicting me. Yes, I would tell those who might ask, yes it's a show about people in space and there are robots chasing them, but they look like people too, and there's FTL jumping and fun with guns and cylons IS kind of a dorky word, I know. Yes to all that. But beneath all that packaging, it's a show about people. We are boiled down here and stripped of our compass and our comforts and brought to the absolute essential. When all the chips are on the table, your plays are big and risky and sometime awful and unforgivable, but it's either that or you're bust.

I think congratulations are in order for the people who made this show possible. They started out with a deeply disturbing scenario and brought it full circle. From death to birth.

Watchmen: Everyone calm the hell down.

I'm going to do my best to make a simple point and not use too many words doing it. Alan Moore's name is not attached to the film called Watchmen. Zach Snyder, though well-intentioned, doesn't have the author's blessing, and that gives the die-hard fans of Moore's seminal work a great way out. If you decide to check out Watchmen the film, and you decide it doesn't measure up to Watchmen the book, then you can decide to keep your ethereal view of the work just as pure and glowing as ever. Moore's actually gone on record as saying he's not going to bother watching it, and some of his most stalwart fans should consider doing the same. Let's face it, if you're one of the original converts, the ones who discovered the book before there was talk of a film (or at least before you became aware of it, because THAT talk has been around for 2 decades), can it really get any better?

Maybe. I mean, I started from zero last night, so for me, it's a different experience. I had a sense of the overwhelming legendary-ness of the book, which shines through, if nowhere else, in the film's 160 minute runtime. But I didn't feel it dragged, not much. Twenty minutes less wouldn't have hurt, but there was no large chunk of the film that stood out as being easily removable. I enjoyed it all the way through.

The characters were interesting. Not universally likable, but no one was really trying for that, I gather. And again, I didn't have any sense of them going in, so it was all up to the actors. And they all did, at the very least, well. Even Malin Akerman, who seems to be a running thread in the negative criticism of the film's acting merits. She is the weakest link, but Laurie's character isn't very well-written compared to the rest, so she did her best. The rest, by the way, get better (Carla Gugino and Matthew Goode) and better still (Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Patrick Wilson and Billy Crudup) and finally iconic. Many other people have beaten me to the punch in proclaiming Jackie Earle Haley's Rorschach to be gripping and, in the long run, a defining role in his career. It's one of the film's best assets. He is horrifying in his commitment to a character who cannot compromise.

The world of Watchmen is a character itself, and it's been animated here to great success. It's dripping with perpetual cold war fear, and uses as elements some of the worst parts of American history (McCarthyism, even). And it's realized on screen by fantastic production design and captivating cinematography. The backdrop is a crumbling, broken civilization and while the camera remains distant, with a few too many slow-mo ramp ups and downs, the world is convincingly and irredeemably filthy.

It's violent, too... as in rated R, but if you can imagine someone screaming the letter 'R' at you, that might be close. Or sawing off your hands while they're yelling, that would be closer, still. At times it was so graphic it was distracting, and I've wracked my brain trying to come up with a good reason for that level of bone breaking, body exploding, power-saw brutality. I guess it was all very stylized. But otherwise, too much.

Snyder has no problem with style of course, and in the case of the violence manages to put the film more than a little over the top. In other things, like music, it all worked for me. Some people have brought up varying arguments with the use of 'Hallelujah', 'All Along the Watchtower', and '99 Red Balloons', but I loved all that. I can only assume everyone else had a different song playing in their head when they read the book.

So, in the end, Watchmen was an enjoyable film to me. I liked it. I didn't love it, and I wouldn't go wild recommending to tons of people. The violence will repel some, others will dodge thanks to the length, the overall broodiness of it, or maybe even because it's a grand pop-pastiche. Some people don't like pop, I'm told. But for the book lovers, if you wanted a trophy of some kind to go home with, then know that I won't be speaking to people about this film the way you do about the book. Now let it go so we can start arguing over Star Trek.

Get it? Because we WATCH them?

Right. If I see one more article title, deck or headline that tries to make a play on words of the Watchmen movie, I'm going to go bomb all the printing presses. And I'll find a way to mess up the internet, too. I've heard it isn't that hard.

I didn't get to see it yet. Having veto-ed that plan Thursday night when it became clear that every IMAX show the following day would be sold out, we instead played poker and oh hell in my front room until we got bored of that (or really frustrated by the poker chips) and moved into the living room to listen to vinyl as loud as possible. It may have been late by this point. Colin seemed to sleep through it all. So did D, though he was actually in the room with all of the music, yelling and dancing all around him. It's kind of impressive.

So I can't talk about that movie just yet, which is unfortunate, because by the time I CAN talk about it, it won't be nearly as timely. Which I guess doesn't matter all that much since almost no one reads this blog.

Of course, now we can't do our podcast on it. Maybe we should pick another movie to cast about next week. A quick perusal of Tribute reveals that a two week berth has been give to Watchmen so nothing much is happening until the 20th. Blah.

I await suggestions. Oh fuck it, we'll just cast about Watchmen late. If it isn't news, it doesn't have to be timely.

Adaptation

I'm curious about how many films haven't been made because someone adapted a book instead. Or a TV show. Or some toys. Some of these films, I guess I take no issue with them. Not on their own. But they exist within the family of unoriginal ideas, of which sequels and remakes are also obese, loud-mouthed members.

Maybe that's unfair. There have been more than a couple good sequels and remakes and adaptations too. Reboots, the mot du jour, manage to cover every base, giving some franchises a much needed do-over. And I'm all for that. I'm all for things not sucking and Joel Schumacher's work being swept into the corner and ignored.

But jesus we need some fresh ideas. All these examples, even when they turn out well, are drawing from places we've been before and there's too much of it. There's always going to be a segment for this, and I'm all for it. They allow our nostalgia to be dusted off from time to time, and if they're handled well, they add something new to the storytelling.

There is of course the risk that what you make will fall below expectations and make the fanboys and girls freak out en masse, levelling the full brunt and power of the internet at you. Or you could just not read the blogs and boards. I bet Zach Snyder is at least a little nervous.

This Canadian's New Favourite Radio Show...

...is 'This American Life'. Thanks Mitch. In case you don't know about this hour-long radio show, and really, unless Mitch harasses you likewise with good recommendations and, I'll say it, some pretty decent sexual innuendo (although I can think of at least one good place where he should start directing the latter), maybe you don't know about the show. It's fair, you don't live in Chicago. And I don't, either, and neither does Mitch, but somehow he caught on to this and caught me onto it and I'm very glad he did. They run with good, interesting themes and get together good interesting stories and they're human and they turn heads. I highly recommend it. For the patient, their podcast updates every week with a new ep, but they don't stay free forever. I've heard four episodes, all outstanding. There. I'm recommending something that isn't put out by the CBC. I'm so totally impartial.

'This American Life'. From Chicago, playing everywhere.

Nerds unite. Ok, now disperse.

It's a strange time to be a geek. Or a nerd. A fan of sci-fi, fantasy, and really I don't know what else we hold dominion over, probably video games. Comics. Specifically, it's a strange time to be a fan of sci-fi on TV. There are some very cool things happening, but the lens by which I will focus my sights today is the recent launch of Dollhouse, Joss Whedon's NEXT BIG THING. Even though it's a good bet to say he wouldn't describe it that way.

If you don't know who Joss Whedon is, you're probably not much of a nerd. He has been a patron saint of nerdy television for more than a decade. In 1997, he launched Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a show which rapidly gave rise to a vivid reality of gender inversion in genre television. Buffy the superhero was notably also Buffy the girl, with best friends who amounted to ex- and future witches (one of whom would inevitably become one of TV's first lesbians), vampires with feelings, demons gone soft, and a man-sel in distress. Whedon spun off Angel (a non-evil vampire, most of the time) and sent him, well, to the city of angels, and the shows ran at times concurrently in the same universe of magical, myth-inspired mayhem until 2004.

That, plus a bunch of comics, takes care of the Buffyverse, leaving the world of Firefly. A show about cowboys in space was so amazing, Fox saw fit to cancel it, which is what they do best to good shows. We can't fault them for sticking to their strengths. Fate not being without a sense of humour, it seems telling the underdog story landed Whedon's show as a permanent underdog. Fourteen episodes exist, and by resounding fan request, protest and, one presumes, death threats, a feature film was made, too. Serenity even made money for its distributor, no longer Fox, and left fans as vindicated as fans can be when their favourite show ever - no matter what, no matter how amazing any other show is in perpetuity throughout the universe - gets cancelled.

Then Whedon was doing something else for a little while, or perhaps several other things, like directing a couple episodes of The Office and creating and realizing the wonderful Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog during the '08 Writers' Guild Strike.

So, now. Dollhouse. Buffy alum Eliza Dushku plays Echo, a 'doll' in the 'house' who exists to be the curvy-body-shaped revolving door for whatever personality suits her job that week. So far she's been a great date and a child hostage survivor turned child hostage negotiator. the personalities they give her are, or were, real personalities from real people, and as of episode 2, that's already been a problem. Apparently, the first doll, retaining some combination of personalities from all his 'imprints', ran amok and murdered nearly everyone in his path save for Echo. Olivia Williams, an actress woefully underused, runs the dollhouse and contracts with clients for exorbitant amounts of money the services of people who are perfect for the job, at least while they're wearing the glass slipper.

That's a unique, complex premise. And while I do think it's pretty cool, it's also a massive undertaking to bring that concept to a place where people engage with it on a human level. My observation of the first two episodes is that this show isn't really about people yet, which really needs to get worked out, because it's what every other Whedon work had going for it. It's still just a concept, and while the second hour started down the right road by fleshing out the character who looks after Echo, it's still just a curiosity. My interest is there, but I'm not hooked yet. I am, on the other hand, excited for all the things they could do if they get the time and the latitude to do so.

And if you listen to some fans, they won't. The Whedonites, the devotees, may have set the bar pretty high here, or maybe we've become expectant that new shows will already have found their footing right out the gate. Dollhouse isn't that show. I'm willing to wait for it, personally, because as described, it's a big box of what-the-fuck. And it can't all be confusion. Shows need focus, or at least a tropical island to retain people's devotion. And I actually love Lost, but when I read some of the already fed-up, frustrated letters of abandonment that fans are levelling at Dollhouse, I have to wonder. These can not be the same people. Two episodes. Lost is in season 5, and though I'm sorting its jigsaw pieces into piles, I don't have a box to show what the hell it's supposed to look like. Maybe nerds have used up all their patience this season on Heroes.

I guess I have a wish, a sincere wish of the fans of Whedon. Calm the hell down. If you head over to Penny-Arcade today, you'll see that this fan's dilemma has reached their radar, one of the more cluttered, far reaching radar screens in this kingdom of nerddom. And if you read the news post there today, you'll see that a good argument is, 'I don't have time to watch this while I wait for it to get better'. That's fair. And if you feel that way then stop watching, because there's a certain resolution in that. Whatever the show is right now hasn't hooked you, and this is why your TV has a remote. This is also why you have an internet connection, and a nearby retailer, which together can tell you if and then where to pick up the show on DVD should it improve in your absence. This is common practice even for shows that people love unconditionally, because DVD lets us live unwed to the line-up schedule of Fox or anyone else.

So my wish. If you don't like it, stop watching. If you're liking it, keep watching it. If you hate this show, and you choose to carry on watching it, because you're so devoted to Joss or something, then you're wasting your time. Because maybe Joss will come through, but man do I not want to hear you nitpicking everything you hate about a show you choose to watch in the meantime. Unless you're a TV critic, then I think you get paid for that. For the rest of us, we can just let you know if it gets better. What else do you have to do on a Friday night, anyway? Battlestar's on.

Revolutionary Road

A film changes quite a lot for me when I find out what the intention was behind making it. It took me a second viewing of Zodiac, after all, to realize that it was meant to be that slow and frustrating. So, I guess I'm hoping that Sam Mendes intended the audience of his fourth feature to feel as though whatever tethered Frank and April Wheeler together was long dead.

My best estimate is that it takes less than 10 minutes for the unhappily wed couple to get at each other with some raw verbal combat. Ten minutes of screen time, that is - the film skips over their perhaps rosier early years. It's ugly and foreboding, and exceptionally well performed. Leonardo DiCaprio is satisfied here to take a role that is anything but glamourous - Frank is a bastard and a coward, and the film wastes little time getting you to that conclusion. April, as performed with naked desperation by Kate Winslett, is a woman stripped of her dreams, one by one. She starts out with great fortitude as a character, but she is gullible. She is betrayed by Frank; she allows herself to be betrayed by him.

I suspect there will be two distinct readings of this film - one by the wed and one the unwed. I read elsewhere a reviewer horrified by the film and the way that it undermines the mental image of marriage by poking at every insecurity felt by those in one. For a single person like myself, it's far more cautionary, like an extrapolation of watching that couple you know who don't belong together but stick with it anyway. This, I think we are meant to fear, is where they are headed.

You know from the get go that Frank and April won't escape the mess they've gotten themselves into, so you can't help but wonder at the point of all this. The trappings of marriage have been explored elsewhere, and this doesn't say anything new. As exquisitely performed as it is by all parties, with special notice going to Michael Shannon, the performances don't move us to like Frank or April, and I struggle to understand why that wasn't important.

We're never given an opportunity to see the Wheelers as a happy couple. In fact we're never allowed to see them as a happy family, either. Oh yes, did I mention that they have kids? That's where I'll leave it - the word count is proportionate to how much time they spend in the movie, implied or otherwise. Because we move so quickly to seeing them disintegrate, we can never care about where the movie is inevitably going. It goes to some bleak, broken places, but it's fated to. No matter how bad it is when we get there, the reaction isn't one of shock or awe, it's a grave nod of the head, because we all knew where this Revolutionary Road was leading.

Fresh Ingredients - week of 01/26/2009

As I write this, the no. 2 episode of Battlestar from part 2 of this final season is playing. It's an improvement over last week, which pulled the rug out a few two many times. This week (or technically last week) they've returned to some extra fun practicality - cylons are friends, enemies, people are too, people are also uprising and it's all a delicious mess.

Also picked up and thoroughly recommendable: The demo for Project Origin (also known as FEAR 2) . It's goddamned scary is what it is. Scarier than the first game. They made the graphics better, which only helps the terrifying atmosphere. And when I say helps, I mean it helps prompt you to pee your pants. Full version on February 10th

Tomorrow (the datestamp will read today because it's late-ish) I will be checking out Revolutionary Road.

I'm behind on the following, I really need to catch the hell up:

Slumdog Millionaire

The Wrestler

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Frost / Nixon

Gran Torino

Zack and Miri Make a Porno

... I must still be missing something. Some of that is gonna be on video soon for god's sake.

So, thoughts on Revolutionary Road tomorrow night.

Histories, futures

Welcome back to the internet, I say! You weren't gone, but I was. Last night, Carly revealed that while bored at work recently she perused my entire LiveJournal history (she's totally not a stalker) and made me not only think of Live Journal for the first time in years, but also glad that I had, at one time, that place to let my thoughts out - as much as they were usually just kid stuff. It was important then, so it's part of me. I went back and looked at a couple posts, and wow.

Things are different now. Still, it didn't take long for me to come upon this quote, from my number one go-to guy, Mr. Matt Good. I stand by its timeless quality:

Welcome to today? How do you feel?

This is what today looks like. Is it what you expected?

There will come a time when you will wake up and realize that there will come a time when you will not.

There will come a time when the version of you on this day will seem stupid.

It is not your fault.


So, moving forwards ... I intend to mostly write about film, TV and music on here, though I'm sure I'll add in other things.

Also, if you've just discovered this and you don't know me, here's some basic stuff. As I write this, I am a 24-year-old video editor for CBC News in Toronto, Canada. I am a graduate of Guelph-Humber University, where I ran out the door holding a diploma in Journalism and a degree in Media Studies. All media-related news fascinates me, and I am way behind on my movie-watching. My family and friends (whose status is kind of interchangeable for the most part) are the dearest part of my life.

First thing's coming soon: A review of whatever movie I finally catch up with this weekend.