Batman: TAS, episode #59: Blind as a Bat

On the one hand, this is another Len Wein episode (Hooray for comics royalty from the 70s and 80s.) OTOH, this is another Penguin (Paul Williams) episode which pretty much guarantees that it's not going to have a ton of story or depth attached to it. The fact that said character is the lead in the highly-regarded HBO series of his name (and the utter transformation of Colin Ferrell in the role) is just another oddity of the continuing legend of The Batman. Of course, the Penguin has always been kind of an odd bird...

The premise is that Wayne Enterprises is building weapons (something the comic Bruce Wayne was always opposed to and a tendency that carried into the film productions of both Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan.) In other words, he didn't want to be another Tony Stark of the era when this was written and produced; long before the more ethical behavior of the Robert Downey, Jr. version of Tony Stark that recent Marvel fans were so fond of. In that respect, it's an unusual angle for Wein to take from the very beginning. Is that because of a dearth of real stories that could be attached to the "odd man" version of the villain that persisted for decades? This whole premise was obviously constructed around him from the basic visual design on up. It's no surprise that the super helicopter produced by Bruce's company is extremely, uh, gut-forward in its appearance or that it flies in the same manner that you might imagine a penguin would fly, if it could, despite the machine being named "the Raven X1-11." Everything about it looks clumsy but with hidden strengths and a ferocious bite, which is often how the Penguin has been depicted, albeit less so in the latter respect.

And that's the real difference in this presentation of the character. Although the Penguin has never shied away from violence during his efforts to steal and puff up his reputation/feathers (much like the current president...), Wein's version seems even more intent on drawing blood at every opportunity. When he heightens the threat presented by the chopper in order to encourage the release of its ransom, he's willing to sacrifice innocent citizens by collapsing one of the city's bridges. When he wants his henchmen to do something, he's not cajoling or even commanding. He's directly threatening with an extended umbrella blade. This is a more rough-and-tumble character who reflects an early example of the vision that later became standard in things like the Gotham TV series and the aforementioned HBO series, where the Penguin isn't just an odd villain for The Batman, but a real gangster who's intent on killing anyone who gets in his way. We also get to see the return of the redoubtable Leslie Thompkins (Diana Muldaur), who not only remonstrates with the blinded Bruce Wayne to take a break and let someone else handle the birds, but also displays a previously unknown talent for welding... The helmet that Bruce uses to assist his sight leaves him with the appropriate red eyes, just like all of the bats in his cave, which was another nice touch.

But, even after all that, this still ends up being another "villain of the week"-style episode, with only the Batman's vision problems providing any variation from many before and after it. And, given that his "direct link" invention obviates that blindness for most of the episode, even that little twist isn't genuinely played into. As with most Penguin episodes, if you've (ahem) seen one of them, you've basically seen them all. One interesting moment from an animation history perspective was when the Penguin fires the Raven's lasers to bring down the Batwing. That laser sound effect is the same one that they were using for the Super Friends back in the mid-70s and many, many other productions and which may still be in use today, for all I know. It's one of those "Wilhelm screams" of animation in that you can always think back to cartoons that may have exercised it when you hear it.

Next time, the return of another comic writing legend and a much more interesting villain in The Demon's Quest, part 1.

Batman: TAS, episode #58: Shadow of the Bat, part 2

Again, this two-parter ended up almost embodying the nature of Two-Face, the character, as we went from moody, heavy noir in part 1 to largely action, superhero-y stuff in part 2. The pace of the opening scenes kept time with the first episode, as we watch Robin (Loren Lester) and Batgirl (Melissa Gilbert) surveilling Gil Mason (Tim Matheson), where director Frank Paur takes a moment to show Mason pacing back and forth in concern over the upcoming meeting with Two-Face (Richard Moll.) In that moment of extended encounter between the two heroes, it's interesting to note the animation studio's decision to sometimes depict Batgirl with her utility belt clasped tightly around her hourglass waist and at other times see it hanging rather more provocatively on her hips. The depiction of heroines in comics has long been dogged by this kind of presentation, in which the good guys are invariably far more attractive people than either the villains or regular types. Harvey Bullock (Robert Costanzo) is a great example of someone who's nominally "heroic" but isn't meant to be taken seriously and/or idolized by the younger viewers in that way and, consequently, is overweight and a slob. Batgirl, OTOH, is demonstrably sexy in the same way that The Batman is an inverted triangle-shaped buff superhero. The cartoon, like the comics, was largely constrained by convention (Heroes were supposed to be impressive, look like model examples of humanity, etc.) but it is definitely a line drawn between The Batman (only moderately (and never acknowledged) mentally disturbed and, therefore, drawn as a hero) and his opponents (often clearly mentally disturbed and drawn in repellent/shocking fashion) and regular people (Bullock, drawn in not always repellent but clearly contemptible fashion.) Commissioner Gordon (Bob Hastings) as a hero, but still a "normal" person, crosses the line between the two. This is all regular visual presentation stuff that is as much a part of animation as the comics and it's something that my partner, Jeff, and I used to keep in mind when we were running our studio for any of our artists who were writing about superheroes (aka not me.)

Batgirl is presented as both a figure of sympathy (angered at being belittled by both Robin and The Batman) and a representation of how no one can measure up to our central hero, when she disrupts Robin's attempts to ambush Two-Face and his henchmen in order to effect a rescue. She's clearly capable but not quite at the level of the Caped Crusader, which is a way to make sure this is still The Batman's show, which it is, and also highlight the experience that both he and his primary partner, Robin, have in operating together. There's a great moment when Bruce clearly sees Robin's activity behind the gang and nods to him so that Robin knows he's in on the plan. It's a character-reaffirming action and it's mirrored by Two-Face reacting with outrage to Mason referring to him as "Harvey" ("Don't call me that!") His identity is completely subsumed, whereas The Batman can still step outside himself as both an undercover agent and as Bruce Wayne. Again, it's the question of focus and discipline that defines the difference in irrational behavior between dressing up as a bat to beat up bad guys and being the bad guys themselves. Part of their disdain for Batgirl's presence is their questioning her ability to maintain that focus (not that Robin is especially capable of that in most of his appearances in BTAS.) Batgirl is right to feel offended but the story represents her being the trigger that causes many of their problems when Two-Face escapes the ambush and then floods the tunnels, which our two main heroes have to then survive.

There is some interesting dialogue along the way. At one point, The Batman states that Two-Face's coin is "judge, jury, and executioner." At the time this was written (late 80s to early 90s), that was virtually a tagline of the X-Men, in the middle of almost three decades being written by Chris Claremont, whenever they were questioning someone's ethics/morals in dealing with a problematic situation. Like The Batman, they were outside of society and hated/feared by much of it, but they continually demonstrated that they would try to live by its rules. The problem is that Claremont overused it so it became more of what would later be called a "meme", rather than an affecting statement of righteousness. In a similar fashion, the commissioner has a great line when castigating Mason for his betrayal, as he nods to Two-Face and states: "At least I can see his bad half!" But in the pell mell of superhero action, the writing of this episode tended to fall down a bit compared to part 1. In a flooding subway tunnel, do you really want to enter a subway car where the water can eventually rush in and you'll have that much less space for oxygen, as opposed to the top of the tunnel? Also, how was the commissioner not affected by the tear gas canister that Batgirl tossed right into the middle of the group where he was standing? And Two-Face being halted and then trapped by the falling silver dollar coin sign at the docks was more than a little corny. All of this was a step away from the great atmosphere in the first part that was maintained for a bit in part 2 but then drifted away in favor of superheroics. There's nothing wrong with the latter, as that is indeed why we're watching this series. It's just a step down from how the story was initially delivered. That continues into the end, which is a very staid and clichéd happy ending with no question that everything is wrapped up with a neat bow.

Next time, we're back to The Penguin and the incapacitated Batman in Blind as a Bat.

Batman: TAS, episode #57: Shadow of the Bat, part 1

The title of this two-parter should have some meaning to those who were reading the comics back in the day, even if it has nothing to do with the story itself. As noted many times here, Steve Engelhart's run on The Batman is considered a highlight of the almost-century-old character's existence. It created characters that have become staples of the mythos and, of course, also included the greatest Joker story ever told. In the mid-1980s, DC recognized the attachment that people had for this run and reprinted portions of it as a limited series called Shadow of the Batman. That's when The Batman's popularity was beginning to reach epic proportions with the publication of Frank Miller's Return of the Dark Knight and the Tim Burton film to follow a couple years later. Finally, in 1992, DC began a fourth monthly series about the character (after Detective Comics, Batman, and Legends of the Dark Knight) called Batman: Shadow of the Bat. So, for those of us old enough to be around "back in the day" (or just, you know... old) that title is always going to carry some weight and I think that played into the overall story presented here, as well.

As noted last time, not only is this the first appearance in BTAS of Barbara Gordon (Melissa Gilbert) as Batgirl, but it's also clearly written as a work of longer effort, rather than just the weekly situational episode and not simply because it's a two-parter. There's a pacing present here that regular director, Frank Paur, and semi-regular writer, Brynne Stephens, maximize at every opportunity. I've talked often about the noir roots of not only The Batman but especially this series and this episode is clearly written with that in mind. There are many set pieces that would've been glossed over or presented through dialogue in the average episode, but here we see the moment when Mad Dog (Greg Burson) interacts with the mysterious boss and we see the little character moments with Barbara and with Robin, as well as Bruce in disguise playing pool at the Stacked Deck while gathering info about who might be behind the plot to frame Jim Gordon (Bob Hastings.) It's all carefully shown, rather than told, and the pace is deliberate. Of course, speaking of that plot, it's kind of funny that the rally held in his defense isn't proclaiming that "Jim Gordon is Innocent", but instead that "Jim Gordon Deserves Bail." That's the most proper, follow-the-due-process-of-law public protest that I can remember. ("Jim Gordon Deserves a Motion for Change of Venue at Pre-trial!") This is on top of the assistant commissioner bringing Gotham City police to arrest the commissioner of said police, which would normally be done by something like the FBI, so as to avoid chain of command issues. This point, of course, was also to emphasize the betrayal inherent to this whole situation by the 'two-faced' Gil Mason (Tim Matheson.) The little humor doesn't stop with the police, since Rupert Thorne (John Vernon) is in our opening scene, somehow walking around a building for no apparent purpose where crime is taking place, just like no crime boss should ever be doing, especially one as smart as Thorne. (Rupert Thorne, of course, was created by Engelhart in those stories partially reprinted in Shadow of the Batman.) But those are just nitpicks, really, and the upsides to this episode are many.

Barbara Gordon, for example, not only appeared three more times before this (including another two-parter written by Stephens) as her own person walking her own path, but now takes up the road-less-traveled like Bruce, albeit with far less grim (and obsessive) motivations. Confronting both the paternalism of her father and The Batman in adjoining scenes, you can see why a determination to do what she sees as right is something that's been with her from the beginning of her appearances here. Appearing as kit-bashed Batperson only earns her more of that male attitude when Robin (Loren Lester) sees her ("A girl?!") but also lends some weight to the idea that this is one of the few things that the Batman TV series from the 60s might have gotten right. Robin makes that exclamation upon tearing her costume and seeing her blazing red hair. Yvonne Craig appeared in Batman as her regular brunette self when playing Barbara and had a red wig attached to her costume to further misdirect people as to her identity when playing Batgirl. In terms of people taking on new identities, this was also a moment for Mr. Inconsistent, Harvey Bullock (Robert Costanzo), to jump to the commissioner's defense by leading the effort for the rally for proper legal procedure, rather that immediately jumping on Mason's bandwagon. This version of Bullock is largely supportive of Gordon throughout BTAS and saves his venom for The Batman, but he has moments of dissension and the character was virtually built on those from his first appearance in Detective in 1974, so it's often hard to keep his motivations straight.

And, yes, in perfect sync with his identity, it is totally appropriate for Two-Face (Richard Moll) to appear in a two-parter with a master plan to undermine his former colleague, Jim Gordon. Even if you didn't recognize Moll's voice in that initial moment with Mad Dog, you would've been able to tell from the clues leading into the reveal, like the fact that the building where he's masterminding has two paint jobs, split right down the middle. I appreciated the focus that Stephens paid to the coin flipping, too, as that's a central point of the character that's often tossed to the side like some kind of gimmick. But his dual nature is another reflection of that of our protagonist, Bruce Wayne/The Batman. Harvey Dent just lacks the control and willpower that Bruce displays to not only keep his mental health issues from totally distorting his life, but also to use them as fuel for the focus that his second (first?) life requires. Two-Face remains one of the best of The Batman's foes for that reason, as not only is he purely driven by his dichotomy (somebody told me that word before...) but there's an element of tragedy there that lingers in the background whenever he's the main element of the story.

Next time, it is, of course, part two (face) of Shadow of the Bat.

Batman: TAS, episode #56: Harley and Ivy

I have many rather mixed feelings about this episode. On the one hand, it has one of my favorite modern characters of the Batman mythos in Harley Quinn (Arleen Sorkin.) Despite her origin in this very series as a goofy mascot of The Joker (Mark Hamill, as always), she was so popular that she later went on to appear regularly in the comics and in even later DC productions based on those comics (and this series.) As noted earlier, the version of her that appears in Amazon's Caped Crusader is the best one ever done and carries the inherent appeal of the character into a very realistic rendition. But there's something that simply made the character interesting from the beginning, especially when she's played with the maniacal edge that comes with hanging around the Clown Prince of Crime for too long. OTOH, Poison Ivy (Diane Pershing) has always been one of the "gimmick" villains of the Rogues' Gallery, with nothing that makes her genuinely compelling. In a comics world where the other hero with a regular gallery, the Flash, had opponents like Captain Cold, Heat Wave, and Weather Wizard, Ivy filling the "plants" slot of the various natural phenomena villains wasn't especially interesting.

Similarly, the main theme of the episode is female empowerment in this, our misogynist society, which is an obviously laudable goal. It's just that the way it's delivered is so ham-handed that it was likely to have been mocked not only by the young boys watching but by the young girls, as well, for being about as obvious a delivery as could be imagined. Ivy strolling into the Peregrinators Club to be greeted with "Is that a woman?! Here?!" can leave you shaking your head at the archaic tendencies of someone that would react like that... or the person who wrote it, which was Paul Dini, stalwart of the show and not generally prone to not-even-pedestrian lines or plots like this. Oh, and not even effective given that Harley is still devoted to her abusive boyfriend at the end of the show. So, in terms of general mission and the quality of the story, this one is fairly close to the low end of the scale. We also don't delve into the deeper social aspects of the situation, in that the Queens of Crime who are riding high over Gotham are also both depicted as sexpots (i.e. things for men to ogle at and often not respect) in this episode and every other appearance. This is aside from the more Batman-centric aspect to it, in which the girls and young women watching the show are meant to think of standing up for themselves and their rights embodied by two hardened criminals (aka the interesting characters) and not, of course, our hero (or even Batgirl!) So, yeah, a lot of more complicated criticisms of this one can easily be peeled away as you look deeper into it.

One really positive development, however, was that this episode was the initiation for the Harley-Ivy relationship that has since persisted in the aforementioned other media and has become something of a fan-favorite situation. And there were some good moments here. The anti-Batman fridge magnet at Ivy's place was a nice touch, as were the multiple classic film references ("I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship!"; Ivy's license player reading "Rosebud", etc.) Not sure what relevance those had to the overall picture, but that's fine. I appreciated Ivy being direct with her own criticism, as well ("Change the record, Harl! You wanna be some wacko's victim the rest of your life?") Similarly, Harley taking care of the obnoxious frat boys in as direct a manner as can be used (boors meet bazooka) was also fun. However, in the end, we come to the conclusion that, despite its trappings, this wasn't really a "Harley 'n Ivy" episode as much as it was a Joker one, since he's the main threat at the end, destroys Ivy's house, almost kills The Batman in the process, only to be rescued by the latter as almost an afterthought while Renee Montoya (Ingrid Oliu) delivers the "I am no man!" moment in arresting our two sideshows. Given that he's the central threat, it's also mildly disappointing to see his mania be subsumed by the typical relationship dynamics of a guy not appreciating (and not listening to) the companion who is always by his side (and I don't mean the hyenas.) On that whole "social responsibility" thing, as well, it was kind of startling how dangerous and violent the high speed chase was that opened the episode and led to Harley getting tossed out by her beau. Not very responsible on the part of the protector of Gotham.

But speaking of Batgirl, she makes her first appearance in the series in next time's episode, Shadow of the Bat, part I.

Alien: Earth, episode 3: Metamorphosis (into something mildly interesting)

The opening moments of episode 3 were emblematic of some of my thoughts on the first two, as Nibs (Lily Newmark) questioned with some disdain why she and the rest of the hybrids were named after Peter Pan characters. My thoughts, exactly. Here's where we really get meta. Was Hawley doing that to show how shallow Boy Kavalier (Samuel Blenkin) is, despite his genius (shades of Elmo yet again)? Or was Hawley genuinely using that as I thought before, simply because it's a trope that a lot of people will latch onto? And, again, it is a Disney property. (Marketing! Woo!) But I'm starting off with a heavy dose of similar disdain for an opening to an episode that, as it went along, actually turned into the best of the initial three. There were still some predictable parts and it's still part of an origin story, which is always below the degree of originality that I'm usually looking for these days, but there are a couple interesting things going on.

What stuck out to me overall were the number of references to other elements of our sci-fi culture over the past 50 years. Once might call them "homages." One might also call them "obvious touchstones." If you want to really be dismissive, you'd call them "ripoffs designed to evoke familiarity because, once again, your story is lacking originality." I'm not sure that I'm quite that cynical, as of yet, but it's something that's going to continue to rear its head as long as the central plot is the overtly Blade Runner-esque "What does it mean to be human?" There's nothing wrong with that plot. It's a great premise for any number of stories. I'm just continuing to draw this comparison and my mild frustration with it based on the assertion at the very beginning of episode 1, which stated that the major corporations were engaged in a race to find "immortality", despite synths and their cyborg simulacra being not suitable for what you'd assume "immortality" was intended to do (i.e. preserve the rich.) The only model that's come close is that of the new one: the hybrids. Presumably, this is supposed to define Kavalier's "genius", in that he's finally found a way to accomplish this desired goal of people like him. But synths and cyborgs were never going to be part of that goal, so that whole element still seems a little hazy and more of a sop to Blade Runner fans (like me.)

But Hawley is at least spreading his net wide. Not only are we doing the replicant thing, but it's obvious that someone among the story team was a Netrunner player, since the identities of the corporations that we've seen are much like the major players of that legendary card game: Haas-Bioroid specialized in android design. Jinteki was about biological enhancement. And the Weyland Consortium had a wider portfolio than any other. And, yes, the name of that Consortium was almost certainly a reference back to Weyland-Yutani from the original film, who still exist here. Can you do an homage to an homage? If the next corporation we're introduced to is a media conglomerate (NBN!), my suspicions will be confirmed. Similarly, although slightly more subtle, we have Kavalier's exclamation: "New lifeforms! With acid for blood! Like an undiscovered country!" Hello, Star Trek fans. At least they cited the best of the films. (Fight me, Khan fans.) But some of that referential material is self-referential and, as with the first two episodes, gets a little annoying. Morrow (Babou Ceesay) confesses to Smee (Jonathan Ajayi) and Slightly (Adarsh Gourav) that he was given the same instructions and found some of the same internal conflict that Ash would find two years later (or, y'know, almost 50 years ago when the original film was released): Mother told me to do this and I had to struggle with the ethical complications of making the crew expendable. I get that major corporations tend to lack innovative thought but my first question had I been in that writer's room would have been: Haven't we been here before?

And that extends to Kersh (Timothy Olyphant) somewhat, as well. He begins to take on a minor deus ex machina role (how drolly appropriate...) as he deftly uncovers and explains all the little mysteries about what happened, what's happening now, who Morrow is, how the aliens function, and why it's dangerous for the inferior human, Kavalier, to be near the eggs. He's the walking exposition guy that kept the story below 60 minutes. But you can only have that ultimate info key walking around for so long before suspension of disbelief begins to fail. That said, Kersh and Morrow are still, by far, the most interesting characters, based on Olyphant's gravitas and Ceesay's genuine inhuman struggle with his nascent humanity. That comes out even more strongly in this episode than it did in the opening two because this script is stronger in character action than either of the openers. The inclusion of Joe (Alex Lawther) with Wendy (Sydney Chandler) has grounded some of the more emotional content in something that's real, as opposed to plot-driven. Of course, Joe spends most of this episode unconscious, but the fact that he still has the opportunity to be so is one of my major story questions. As noted, the xenomorph in the first two episodes was like an ever-expanding cloud of shrapnel, eviscerating everything in its path. But, suddenly, Joe is the first choice for it to do the "phlegm them for the eggs" capture routine. Why him and why now? Is it just the plot armor for a starring role? If so, that's quite weak.

And there are a couple more points of interest that pop up outside of the airspace of Kersh or Morrow. One of them is Curly's (Erana James) insistence to Kavalier that she should be the favorite: "She's my favorite because she was first." "My dad always threw the first pancake in the trash." She's demonstrating the hyper-awareness and unbridled ambition of some youths, which does play right into Kavalier's complaint to Dame Sylvia (Essie Davis) that he's creating this multi-billion dollar project because he's bored and wants to have a decent conversation with someone (obvious segue) but it also at least gives James and her charisma some screen time. Now I'm just waiting for her to do a floor spin at some point to kick away an alien threat. Kavalier also asserts that he created the hybrid project in part because "Children have access to a world of infinite imagination." Not only is this another tired Peter Pan reference but, hey, man: I'm 55 years old and my imagination is still pretty damn good. The other interesting bit is Wendy reacting to the shrieks and pain of the face hugger that Kersh dissects... perfectly. Somehow. That's at least a worthwhile mystery for now. I also have to say that I appreciate the cynical design of the Prodigy logo, as our camera recedes from Wendy's throes of agony to end the episode. Just like with the first two, I'm not sure how relevant Metallica's "Wherever I May Roam" is for the end credits but, yeah, whatevs. Overall, it was an improvement from the first two. Still not classic, but worth watching episode 4.

Might be TTH: Alien: Earth, episode 1 and 2

Those of you who've followed my work here for any length of time know that I'm a Ridley Scott fan... to a point. I think his first three films (The Duellists, Alien, Blade Runner (the director's cut; no voiceover, ends in the elevator)) are as fine a contribution to the history of cinema as anyone's. Indeed, I still consider Blade Runner to be the finest SF film ever made and one of the greatest films period. Its influence is rampant across my own fiction work. And not far behind in that SF film and film ranking is Alien, which demonstrated that you didn't need lasers or robots or heroic prophecies to make a solid story in the near future. You just needed regular people in extraordinary circumstances, which is the root of a lot of good fiction. Noah Hawley's new series, Alien: Earth unfortunately evades that premise entirely in its first couple episodes. Whether that's just a different take or a significant flaw in the overall story is open for question.

The problem that a lot of creators have struggled with within the constraints of the Alien "franchise" is how to keep drawing people back to the perceived threat of the xenomorphs once they've been "solved" in this or that film. James Cameron produced (and directed) what is probably the greatest sequel ever made with Aliens, when he took the horror film and turned it into an action film without sacrificing story or character. That's because he recognized that what Scott did is create approachable and memorable characters against- again -the backdrop of extraordinary circumstances. (Shakespeare alert!) That's exactly what most creators have failed to do since, instead relying on a new alien gimmick, rather than a story about the moving things on screen that the audience can actually relate and connect to (Full disclosure: When I saw Alien at the age of 7, I was rooting for the creature, but I was like that (far more enthralled by Darth Vader than whiny Luke Skywalker, etc.))

On the one hand, Noah Hawley recognized that his series likely wouldn't be a hit if the story was about the creatures and people just having to figure out the "villain of the week" gimmick like a police procedural or any of a number of mostly DC comics throughout the ages. Instead, he inserted a broader plot that examines the question of why both humanity and the xenomorph's reactions to each other are so foreign. I'm not sure if it's going to work, but it was at least a decent effort so far. The main premise is the competition between the five major corporations that rule the planet Earth to produce a new form of "immortality", be it synthetic (like the androids from the film franchise), cyborg (a single prominent character in the first two episodes), or hybrid (human consciousness transmitted into a synth.) The latter are the creation of the "world's youngest trillionaire", as if this were something to aspire to for all the current tech bro followers of Elmo Musk. They're also the central focus of the plot. I believe the idea is that, since they inherently have human consciousness (and, supposedly, conscience), they'll be the most interesting to follow and most relatable to the audience. Since all of the hybrids are created from terminally ill children, Hawley chose to cloak this whole aspect of the plot in the regrettable Lost Boys trope from Peter Pan, which has been so done to death that not even supposed immortality can rescue it. It's also an interesting insight into current world circumstances, in that it allows a company owned by Disney (Hulu) to produce a show that also uses Disney properties as central themes of the story in the form of that film, as well as Ice Age. Something something corporations ruling the world and all that. I mean, the whole premise of the xenomorph reproduction process is parasitic, so this should come as an easy turn for a company like Disney...

Hawley has done good work in the production process by borrowing extensive elements from the original film. Given that this is technically a prequel (le sigh), most of the technology on the Weyland-Yutani ship retrieving the specimens is drawn from the original film, from the text sounds to the light panels of Mother, the ship's AI. That's interesting for a bit but it eventually veers from homage to near-mockery. And I'm fine with cross-time technologies, in that their space travel is vastly more advanced than ours but their Internet and communications aren't. That's just a fact of SF only being able to predict so much (people still using pay phones in Neuromancer, etc.) But said advanced space travel also completely ignores the laws of physics when a ship crash lands on Earth under some measure of thrust and somehow doesn't create the mile-wide crater that one would expect. When there are obvious ways to defuse these kinds of glaring plot points (and when you have Disney money to do it with), it does leave you wondering. But those are details.

The main problem with the premise of the superhumans (whether synth, cyborg, or hybrid) engaging with the vastly physically superior aliens is that, well, we lose that whole "regular humans in extraordinary circumstances" element. We do have the hybrids being impaired by the immature emotional responses to events, which is similar to Blade Runner's replicants having difficulty dealing with their own existence. But that was interesting because the entire focus of the film was the question of what it means to be human. This is not that. Instead, it's about what it means to be more than human, which isn't quite as exciting in a genuine Marvel vs DC heroic fantasy comparison. On top of that, there are not yet any genuinely compelling characters to propel the story (in true adventure comic fashion.) In truth, the most interesting people are Morrow (Babou Ceesay), a Weyland-Yutani cyborg determined to serve the company, and Kersh (Tim Olyphant), a Prodigy synthetic determined to be as icy and distant as possible in every circumstance. The most notable thing about Morrow is how much of a fanatic he is to serve the mission (retrieve and protect the specimens, akin to Ash from the original film) but also how utterly inhuman he is when the definition of cyborg is a cybernetically-enhanced human. Again, are we attempting to hearken to the Blade Runner conflict of the inhuman human and the human inhumans? If so, why do we need aliens?

The visuals have been good. I'm finding the architecture to be very Mega City One, which would be an interesting reach if that was their intention, given the far different structure of that society to this one. And, of course, when our gang of hybrids set out to encounter the xenomorphs, the staging shifts into a very familiar "superheroes setting out on a mission" approach which again raises the question of just which aspect of (non)humanity are we focusing on here? Both? Neither? Episode two also branches into high action a la Aliens to Alien. But it also bends distinctly into John Carpenter's The Thing territory with the amount of blood unleashed by the primary alien and some of the other specimens brought back. It's not just the cool tentacles and the disturbing parasites (and not even Face Huggers.) It's the sheer torrent of blood. The original creature was a stalker. People mostly died offscreen. The creatures in Aliens were soldiers, but still mostly did the dirty work off-camera, presumably because people had to be at least partially alive to propagate the bugs. Hawley has taken a very different horror angle in this show, going from the eerieness of The Haunting to something like Friday the 13th, which is vastly less interesting to me from a storytelling angle. I have bloody scenes in my Dystopia work, too, but it's generally meant to be detail, not a starring role. I'm also not entirely certain what the relevance of the 18th-century French party was nor the baseball angle. Is this our sign of actual humans, in that they have hobbies and distractions where the synths and the cyborgs don't? I'm also questioning the choice of credits music, going from Black Sabbath's "Mob Rules" to Tool's "Stinkfist", neither of which seem to have relevance to what's happening onscreen, except in the broadest sense.

So, yeah, overall I'm kinda lukewarm on the whole thing. It's not awful, but it's not exactly compelling, either. Again, watching Ceesay and Olyphant perform means I'll probably continue to see if they can take it somewhere interesting, but it's certainly not in The Wire/Breaking Bad/Game of Thrones (seasons 1-5) territory of something that must be seen or even a "you really should watch this" effort like Andor. I know that's a tall ask, so I'm certainly willing to give it a couple more episodes to see if it can at least aspire to get there.

Realism in fiction

It's not often that a month goes by without anything showing up here, but it is in fact one whole month since the last post. Part of it is that I've been spending most of my writing time at Dystopia.ink. But another part is that we haven't been at the theater very often in the last couple months because there hasn't been much to see. I don't know if it's just a dearth of releases caused by the writers' strike a couple years ago or if the new approach of "Marquee Arts" (the new face of the Michigan Theater non-profit) is to emphasize stuff that makes money (mainstream films) over the smaller returns of the art films that were the reason we joined up in the first place. I really hope the latter is just idle speculation. But tonight we made it back for a film I didn't have tremendously high hopes for, but which turned out to be a solid effort. In a way, my perspective was like the outlook of the main character, Agathe (Camille Rutherford) in Jane Austen Wrecked My Life.

Agathe is an introverted bookseller at Shakespeare and Company (an actual bookstore on the Left Bank in Paris) and an aspiring novelist. She also has no relationships with anyone but her sister and nephew whom she lives with and her best friend and co-worker, Félix (Pablo Pauly.) When she finally gets inspiration from a sake cup in a local Chinese restaurant, she writes the first couple chapters of a romantic novel, which Félix likes and secretly sends to the Jane Austen Residency in England. Agathe reluctantly attends while she tries to sort out her own romantic interactions with Félix and Oliver (Charlie Anson), the son of the people who run the residency. It's not a complex plot, but there's enough depth to the characters and their quite human foibles and exchanges that it was sufficient to keep Story Guy interested in what was coming next, rather than sighing as I predicted the next five minutes from scene to scene. Agathe isn't an especially compelling character, but the story is genuine enough that she doesn't have to be.

This is a mixed-language film, which is nominally French, but spends about half the runtime with the characters speaking English. I'm not sure whether that was a nod to its inspiration (Austen) or just a demonstration of its modernist perspective, in that a significant portion of Western Europe can speak English (or, at least, that's been the case in our ventures into places like Germany, Portugal, and Liverpool.) There's still a certain level of romance (naturally) attached to the French language and I think that may have been part of writer/director Laura Piani's intent. It was billed as a "rom com", but there wasn't much about it that felt comedic, per se. As Jaime pointed out when we were leaving, it felt more like a drama that didn't take itself too seriously and left its characters in several situations that didn't approach the level of tragedy (using the old Greek dramatic split here (comedy/tragedy)), but were emotional enough to not have everyone laughing the whole way through. Stick in the mud that I am, I didn't laugh at all, but did appreciate the humor in several moments; most of them driven by the blessed European forthrightness of the dialogue. I always enjoy the fact that European films with modern characters don't shade their dialogue for the horrible crisis that might be a child walking into the theater. If they're talking about sex, they're not doing it on stage. They're doing it in real life and expressing themselves like real people do.

Of course, given that this film is largely about the crisis of confidence of a writer, I was also instantly interested in that, in the same way I have been with others. We've all been there before. We all will be again. I can say that I've been spending so much time on Dystopia because of that same struggle to put things into words that don't seem to want to cooperate. In Agathe's case, it was also about speaking those words to the people around her and taking the risk of being directly connected to someone. That's an introvert's regular challenge and it's part of why I found her character so believable. I have to say that I tend to share Oliver's initial perspective that Jane Austen is mildly overrated, but I also appreciated Agathe's assertion that Austen was the first Western writer to represent women as human beings, rather than plot devices, some of them "even with a sense of humor." There are points where the film drags a bit, but that may just be the nature of how Piani wanted to tell the story. The best word possible for both the main character and the story, in general, is "thoughtful." The other word that all of us emerged from the theater with is "cute." Again, that's not tremendously compelling, but it could have been a bog-standard, three act comedy, too, and this was elevated some way past that. Worthwhile.