tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261216467149019713.comments2010-02-11T14:06:09.894-08:00fan-staticannenotshirleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16415406799290305410noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261216467149019713.post-28237205406149303482010-02-11T14:06:09.894-08:002010-02-11T14:06:09.894-08:00Dearest Anne:
Dudet, I love your writing. I shal...Dearest Anne:<br /><br />Dudet, I love your writing. I shall now make reading it a regular affair! I abandoned Lost part way through season 2 (why in a moment), so I can't intelligently comment on 'to binge or not binge' on it in particular – at least not after the first season. I too still enjoy event television - for some shows - as I find the participatory aspects do indeed increase the overall value of the show (for me). It is a bit like a serial book club, where I can both prolong the enjoyment by rehashing/viewing it with others and be part of the hype atmosphere - be 'in the know' with all other watchers.<br /><br />Lost – oy. Season one had be by the short hairs, I could not pry my eyes away. I came in to the show halfway through the season, and as soon as season one came out on DVD I watched as much as I could at a time. What soured me – especially after watching many episodes in a row, is that I felt like I kept being hoodwinked. The reveal was always around the corner but was no reveal at all, rather yet another fake trap door. It started to remind me a bit of the old days of watching General Hospital on days I played hooky from school… I think this effect was enhanced by watching episodes back to back – being reminded in quick succession that the reveal indeed fails to appear.<br /><br />I fear I am babbling a bit. So, one more random thought: most shows I watch, whether serially (event) or a la binge, are done on my DVR. Once I am out of the immediacy of the event viewing experience, I tend to not have a very strong desire to watch the episode right away, and end up saving up a few before watching all episodes at a whack.<br /><br />(Going back to re-read your post, then re-reading my comment, I guess I muy agree with you! – and I still think you are a terrific writer) :)<br /><br />NaomiNaominoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261216467149019713.post-10240565818997414482010-02-08T20:10:51.509-08:002010-02-08T20:10:51.509-08:00I've never seen Dexter, but as I told you the ...I've never seen Dexter, but as I told you the other day, I felt somewhat similarly about Six Feet Under. <br /><br />But I really remember my initial experience of Mad Men -- the atmosphere was oppressive. I simply could not binge on it -- we started to do our usual watching of two or three episodes a night, but I had to cut it to one at a time. It became much more manageable when we caught up and watched it once a week. And yet, I still consider that show addictive.<br /><br />We watched the entire series of The Wire this past summer, at the rate of at least one disk a week, usually two or three a week (one of those being on the weekend). That show became depressing as well at a certain point, but for some reason I had no problem watching many episodes at a time.<br /><br />I think LOST is better spread over time for the reasons you mention. Primarily speculation -- without the time lag, you're just watching for the plot, which *is* admittedly most of the fun of that show, but trying to *work out* the plot and themes, trying to guess or figure out things that can't be figured out -- that's where the real fun comes in. Actually, thinking about LOST is often more pleasurable than watching it. Plus, as you said the other day, you often need a break from how stupid the characters act. <br /><br />Overall, I'm very much committed to "event television" as you call it. I try to watch things "live" as much as possible. When I think about it, the only times I've ever watched shows on DVD was when I missed it altogether or thought I could catch up so that I could see it "live." I love looking forward to mid-week LOST (still feeling it should be on Wed), or Sunday night MAD MEN. Binging is fun, but I tend to prefer to savor my shows. We are even considering getting HBO so that we can watch David Simon's new show when it comes on in April! (Probably won't happen, but it's rare for us to consider doing that.)Dr Poppyhttp://www.poppyfields.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261216467149019713.post-33878214351712525002009-08-07T12:21:04.476-07:002009-08-07T12:21:04.476-07:00Very, very interesting. A few thoughts:
1. It'...Very, very interesting. A few thoughts:<br /><br />1. It's possible that Whedon assumes his shows do not have casual viewers.<br /><br />2. The fact that this is on DVD also makes things weird, because you most definitely do not have to BUY the DVD in order to view the show. I for one use my Netflix queue almost exclusively in order to watch shows I didn't see when they originally aired. So what does it mean if someone who didn't watch the show while it was on Fox, but watched it on DVD, knows more than someone who watched it while it was on but didn't buy OR rent the DVDs, since she already saw the show?<br /><br />3. Then again, probably everyone who watches the show knows that episode is on the DVDs, and if she is a "real fan," she will rent it to see the episode. (I myself have thought I should rent the DVD, even though I'm not even that into the show.)<br /><br />4. The episode as you describe it sounds way better than anything that was on the show proper. I wish the 13th episode was actually the first episode, and they went from there, uncovering what happened in the Dollhouse.<br /><br />5. The episode as you describe it reminds me a lot of the finale of LOST season 3. (You know what I'm talking about; I'm not going to explain it in case anyone reading this doesn't know.) It goes from "what" to "how." Still, though, it sounds like the excessive details provided gives at least part of the "how," so obviously my observation doesn't explain why they would give so many details.<br /><br />6. It also reminds me of the finals of season 1 and season 5 of Buffy. Whedon killed Buffy at the end of season 1 (at least he says this is why) because he thought the show would never last. He killed her again when the show went to a new station. I wonder if this is some strange insurance for the show, as if to say, well at least I "ended" the story, even if you won't let me end it -- this won't be another Firefly where things are left unfinished. (?)<br /><br />Thought-provoking. YOu have a talent for making me want to watch this (in my opinion) mediocre show. :-)If you were writing it, it would be better!Poppy Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10670286570216335905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261216467149019713.post-91355580573314121962009-05-11T12:08:00.000-07:002009-05-11T12:08:00.000-07:00This is an awesome post. I haven't seen the final ...This is an awesome post. I haven't seen the final episode yet, so I'm shoring myself up for disappointment. But no matter. I agree with you totally that it is the creepiness of the show that is its strength, and that that creepiness comes about partly by sentimental identification that is continually under stress. This is either because the characters we like are behaving in profoundly unethical ways (Olivia Williams, and the other staff of the Dollhouse), or because they suddenly cease to be the characters we like (Eliza and the dolls). And while I was initially resistant to the idea, I think Dushku's "limited range" adds to the effect very much, because it at once provides me with a consistent presence to attach my feelings to (because she's not that good at pretending to be anyone), while also giving things an unintentional Brechtian twirl by periodically, annoyingly bringing back disbelief through bad acting. And regarding what Poppy Red said, I think that yes, we are meant to be feeling sorry for ourselves, but also for the people we hurt (in this case our victims/creations)--which I figure is one of the hallmarks of a mainstream sentimental critique of anything. And that's the great creepiness at the heart of Dollhouse, that it asks us to watch Eliza regularly, but also suggests that the watching of young women (and not just women, but mostly), and the expectations placed on them, are a form of abuse. That it does this so explicitly is kind of amazing, even if the network/Joss/whoever end up fluffing it.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01456352006479828329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261216467149019713.post-34789592458385578792009-05-09T16:31:00.000-07:002009-05-09T16:31:00.000-07:00This is SOOO interesting! But sadly, as you seem t...This is SOOO interesting! But sadly, as you seem to say at the end of the post, I think you might be giving the show more credit than it's due.<br /><br />One of the problems with seeing this as a critique of sentimentalism is that the characters that you have more likelihood to connect with affectively ARE the dollhouse clients. Ballard, well-noted, is totally gross. But aren't you, my dear, the very one that was saying that of all the characters, it is Olivia Williams's character -- who runs the dollhouse and whom we see partaking of the services at least once -- who made you cry/feel pity? And as unlikeable as Topher is, wasn't the show recently trying to make us feel sorry for him because he has to program himself a perfect doll to play with once a year on his birthday? If we are in the position of client and the clients are the ones we begin to feel pity for, aren't we just feeling sorry for ourselves?<br /><br />What I do think the show does well is to show that a person is a person even if all signs show them not to be. The less human ones are certainly people like Ballard, not people like Echo, right?<br /><br />I have more on this but I can't talk right now. LOVE THIS POST!!!Poppy Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10670286570216335905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261216467149019713.post-80703178445839684952009-04-13T13:29:00.000-07:002009-04-13T13:29:00.000-07:00I don't know Shelock Holmes, except vaguely throug...I don't know Shelock Holmes, except vaguely through that British TV series from the late 80s/early 90s, and of course his modern avatar, Vincent D'Onofrio's Goren on Law and Order: Criminal Intent. But the feminine-y stuff you mentioned is interesting, as is the appeal of a character who is alienated by his gifts. That said I cannot care about Guy Ritchie's movies. He may have it in him to make an unintentional camp classic (indeed it's possible he already has: both Revolver and Swept Away are meant to be monoliths of crap (coproliths?), but I haven't seen either), but he isn't going to make anything clever. The masculine postures in his films make me queasy partly because on some level I get the sense that he really, really thinks that this is what it means to be a real man. That being a working class sociopath is where authenticity lies. It's a nasty atavistic myth about class in Britain. Oh how angry it makes me. Anyway, yeah, sorry, what was I writing about? Oh yeah, Sherlock Holmes is gonna suck, and no matter how much I love RDJr and his wounded put-on masculinity, it's not going to save it. Also, for the record, no Afghan villages were exploded during the course of Iron Man, though pedantry aside, I take your point about the jingo--it's bothersome when brown people must die for conflicted white people to attain self-actualization. Or whatever.Benjedicthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047068605693563112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261216467149019713.post-45285037664859031182009-01-28T14:30:00.000-08:002009-01-28T14:30:00.000-08:00I think this is so interesting, and I have little ...I think this is so interesting, and I have little to add because I am also trying to figure it out. The obsession with reproduction in sci-fi generally is something I'm really interested in. <BR/><BR/>Incidentally, *are* the Cylons monstrous? I mean, I know they are to the humans, but do we factor in reader response here? Surely the reader is more attracted to the Cylons than to the humans on the show (or is that just me?). Is this just the lure of the mysterious/monstrous? Or are we meant to identify with them? Isn't their belief in one god one of the ways we are meant to see them as like "us"?<BR/><BR/>I've always had a real problem with the Cylons wanting to reproduce so badly; I couldn't figure out why that would be important. I agree that it seems the show sees that as what makes a human, though that makes no sense, since animals can reproduce just as well, if not better. It always seemed to me that the Cylons were also better at regenerating, since it was a system that didn't take as many chances. Now that the system has collapsed, I understand its fragility better, but a question remains: how did the Cylons "evolve" in the first place, then? They are different from Centurians, which are man-made, but they also can't reproduce. Is there some magical missing step that made the leap possible? Are the final five the missing link? Why can't they make more of themselves? Am I being stupid? (Probably.)<BR/><BR/>If one were to see the Cylons as the truly queer characters, might their desire to be seen as human (or humanlike) be a reiteration of Judith Butler's theories about expanding the definitions of gender and humanity?<BR/><BR/>Finally, if love is what makes reproduction possible (and I agree that this is what the show has led us to believe), has new information this season changed that, and what is the show saying about love? To me, there's only ever been one loving couple on the show: Helo and Sharon/Athena. So I get that Hera's conception was made possible through love. But Tighe and Six? He, like, hit and tortured her, and since she was a prisoner, I don't see how their sex could not be called rape. And while Cally's doglike devotion to Chief was apparent, we saw how that turned out, plus now that Cally has been newly exposed as a lying slut, what does *that* mean about Nicky's conception? Finally, will Gaeta's recent assholism turn out to be another way for the show to express homophobia? (Incidentally, I think Gaeta's being an asshole, but Adam thinks he is completely in the right and understandable, so that last part is obviously open to interpretation.)Poppy Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10670286570216335905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261216467149019713.post-85300057184317692282009-01-17T12:27:00.000-08:002009-01-17T12:27:00.000-08:00I think your mantra will take you far. With it, yo...I think your mantra will take you far. With it, you already have a much better handle on things than I ever did. <BR/><BR/>There are only two ways that I found to "push through the terror": first, you have to remember that there's a lot more of the mundane just-sit-down-and-type work with this than anything you've done before (along with much more time spent thinking and reading and not actually producing written text), and second, that the whole experience is about, as you say, the process -- not just the process of interpretation, but also the writing process. It's a little annoying, but one actually has to start believing all that stuff we tell our students about how it's going to take time, it's going to take several drafts, and the feedback your readers give you are to help take the work to another level.<BR/><BR/>As one of my advisors once told me, "It's supposed to be hard. It's a dissertation." <BR/><BR/>You're going to be awesome!!Poppy Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10670286570216335905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261216467149019713.post-66421925340706824272008-10-03T20:54:00.000-07:002008-10-03T20:54:00.000-07:00I'm sorry I'm reading this so late. I never read I...I'm sorry I'm reading this so late. I never read <I>Infinite Jest,</I> but that passage is pretty amazing. I know what he meant to you, and I'm sorry he's gone.Poppy Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10670286570216335905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261216467149019713.post-59014108683757892082008-08-14T09:27:00.000-07:002008-08-14T09:27:00.000-07:00Have you thought about why you want to teach Auste...Have you thought about why you want to teach Austen, what you want the students to take away? Maybe this would help you think about possible films, since you could choose something based on theme rather than on the plot? <BR/><BR/>I've taught Pride & Prejudice in a women's lit class several times, and one thing I've done that has worked very well is to show the students the endings of the Keira Knightley adaptation and the PBS/Colin Firth miniseries. (Both are available on YouTube. Some crazy person put the entire miniseries on in 10-minute segments!) Then we discuss the implications of the endings of all three texts. It's very interesting, and they can see how the Hollywood ending version distorts Austen's style, so they can possibly be more savvy when they see such endings in the future. However, I don't make them watch the whole movie or miniseries; it's basically just an exercise for one (75 minute) class period. As far as loose adaptations, the only one I can think of is Bride and Prejudice, which I haven't seen so I can't vouch for it. It's too bad you can't make them see the play Pride and Succubus, which would bring together your love for Austen and vampires: http://www.thunderbirdtheatre.com/<BR/><BR/>I will also say, just be aware that the students might find reading the novel much more difficult than you imagine they would. I definitely wouldn't teach anything other than Pride and Prejudice to non-majors, because the plots of her other novels are too subtle when they're struggling with the language. I wish this weren't the case, but it has been my experience that non-English major undergrads find Austen's writing very difficult to follow. It probably wouldn't be as severe for the students you're teaching now as it has been for the ones I've taught the novel to, but throw in the boy-resistence to reading such a novel and you're probably on a somewhat even playing field.Poppy Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10670286570216335905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261216467149019713.post-39460630919848909602008-07-30T17:27:00.000-07:002008-07-30T17:27:00.000-07:00Anne! You're down from 3 to 5! What gives? :-)I su...Anne! You're down from 3 to 5! What gives? :-)<BR/><BR/>I suppose The Beatles is too easy? Or maybe there's something that's just somehow more serious about them? But there's of course the whole "more famous than Jesus" comment, and the assassination, and the way they made girls scream and faint in a way I can't quite imagine now. I suppose it maybe happens with boy bands, but I don't feel like you see girls losing it with such absolute abandon anymore. Maybe because now they're even more aware there are cameras on them?<BR/><BR/>Oh, and isn't Madonna's current US Weekly incarnation home-wrecker? I have to say, I'm not disappointed that she had an affair; I'm disappointed that it was with a baseball player. Sleeping with a jock just seems so boring and beneath her. But how totally cool is it that your first college class was about Madonna? Seriously, we didn't have anything that cutting-edge at my school.Poppy Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10670286570216335905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261216467149019713.post-31361086493077794362008-07-11T20:55:00.000-07:002008-07-11T20:55:00.000-07:00Oh, I commented before reading the full post. I am...Oh, I commented before reading the full post. I am so excited that you included the Holy Scroll in your post. I saw it when we were in Austin. When I was in college, my English prof lent me a set of tapes (yes, tapes -- I am old) of Kerouac reading his poetry. I would lie in bed every night listening to them and dreaming about how I could have saved him if only we had been alive at the same time.<BR/><BR/>Ehem, my posts are less intellectually stimulating than everyone else's.Poppy Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10670286570216335905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261216467149019713.post-13902399887402821152008-07-11T20:48:00.000-07:002008-07-11T20:48:00.000-07:00That middle school dance troop is incredible. Have...That middle school dance troop is incredible. Have you ever heard <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJJDUbdpc_A&feature=related" REL="nofollow">Harry and the Potters</A>? They kinda go along with what Claudia was saying about how you can be cool and be a Harry Potter fan at the same time. Nothing's cuter than a geeky rocker. And I don't even like Harry Potter.Poppy Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10670286570216335905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261216467149019713.post-21866105940457676602008-07-10T05:25:00.000-07:002008-07-10T05:25:00.000-07:00I was all ready to modify my point but still ultim...I was all ready to modify my point but still ultimately make it when I <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/movies/19jack.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=movies&adxnnlx=1198080315-1rohTC/7Lro6mMMiKPx0JQ " REL="nofollow">research</A> and discovered that Peter Jackson is executive producing the <I>Hobbit</I> movie--so I'm here with my tail between my legs, promising to research more thoroughly in the future.<BR/><BR/>For what it's worth, though (see? I'm still doing it!), I do think that Tolkien is the real auteur figure, not Jackson, notwithstanding the <I>FOTR</I> movies and Jackson's indie following. Although Jackson and del Toro are both acknowledged as brilliant, they're acceptable directors because they're seen as capable chalices for Tolkein's vision. I'm thinking in contrast of the <I>Harry Potter</I> films, and how even though Alfonso Cuarón has a much clearer artistic vision than, say, <A HREF="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0946734/" REL="nofollow">David Yates</A>, he doesn't get tapped to continue directing because he deviated too far from Rowling's story and vision in <I>The Prisoner of Azkaban</I>. Even though that film was more popular with critics (and better), it fails the acid test with hard-core Potter fans (and not just nine-year-olds).<BR/><BR/>All that is to say, you're right, but I still have to make my point. :)annenotshirleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16415406799290305410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261216467149019713.post-33555418801663382972008-07-07T10:32:00.000-07:002008-07-07T10:32:00.000-07:00This is a point so small that I almost feel embarr...This is a point so small that I almost feel embarrassed making it. But if you can't quibble blog about fans, where can you quibble? Anyway: I don't think King Kong was technically a flop, in that it did respectably at the US box office (although it didn't live up to expectations) and very well abroad. See the Wikipedia entry (I'm not tech savvy enough to do a link). Generally, though, a wonderful post, and with you as my authority I will continue to compare The Wire to Dickens despite only ever having read one thing by Dickens.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00715355676802416278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261216467149019713.post-55519672384161589802008-07-01T13:10:00.000-07:002008-07-01T13:10:00.000-07:00Claudia, I think part of the reason that people ca...Claudia, I think part of the reason that people can be fans of things such as Harry Potter and The Simpsons has to do with the appearance of nerd chic somewhere in the early to mid 90s (at least that's when I first observed it, although it probably has earlier roots). And I think that after nerd chic, which at least claims some kind of avant-garde status, you get the mainstream nerd, or the non-nerd nerd, or more specifically the kid who dresses up as Dumbledore (sp?) and doesn't get beaten up. While there are probably lots and lots of reasons for the emergence of nerd chic (I can't help feeling that a lot of it must be tied to the rise of home computing and the internet, and related to that much much greater disposable income for certain kinds of computer nerds), one of them might be the length of time that these other fan subcultures had been established. As Anne noted, Star Wars has a peculiar homogenizing effect on its fan culture, but it's important to note that with the second round of movies the whole thing revived itself from its status as a nerdy subculture, to a hip counterculture, back to being the great mainstream monolith we know and fear. "Real" nerds don't even like the new Star Wars (please see Simon Pegg in the UK sit-com Spaced, haranguing a ten-year-old in a comic book shop on this very subject), but I think they do take their kids to see the films. I may be rambling, but I hope I'm getting at something.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00715355676802416278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261216467149019713.post-47612409199404596992008-07-01T09:37:00.000-07:002008-07-01T09:37:00.000-07:00Anne, you're bringing up one of the issues I was t...Anne, you're bringing up one of the issues I was thinking about as I read your list, which is the fact that all of the texts you are talking about have fan cultures that are in some way counter-cultural or at least identify the fan as part of a subculture, whether its Anglophile intellectuals, or sci-fi geeks, etc. But people also perform fandom with Harry Potter (and the Simpsons) in ways that don't separate them from mainstream culture. You can dress up as Harry Potter and stand in line at midnight to buy the next book/see the next movie and still be a cool kid, at least as I understand it. And there's Harry Potter fan fic, too. I wonder if this is a new phenomenon - fan fic going mainstream? - or if there's some difference between the way people are rabid Potter fans and the way they are rabid Star Trek fans.Claudiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10420380952942056150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261216467149019713.post-19958089493542745112008-07-01T03:29:00.000-07:002008-07-01T03:29:00.000-07:00I think you're totally right about the link betwee...I think you're totally right about the link between reproduction and comedy (and I'm not just talking about bawdery). <I>Buffy</I> gets quoted by fans all the time, too, but just the funny bits, never things like high-drama confrontations between Buffy and Angel.<BR/><BR/>I do think the imitative drive of Python fans is a little different, though, at least for American fans--by quoting Monty Python all the time, people are also performing their alignment with a PBS-y high culture strain, esp. since the jokes tend to be brainier than a lot of American comedies. <I>The Simpsons</I> is of course really smart, too, but you aren't announcing yourself as an Anglophile or history geek when you cite it in conversation.annenotshirleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16415406799290305410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2261216467149019713.post-78361465194495721182008-06-30T14:16:00.000-07:002008-06-30T14:16:00.000-07:00It's interesting you should mention the similariti...It's interesting you should mention the similarities between hardcore Simpsons and Python fandom. I don't know whether it's connected or not, but there's a deep similarity between the two shows in terms of how self-conscious they both were about being TV shows. So many Simpsons plots, subplots, references, etc. revolved around watching TV, to say nothing of the iconic opening credits, where the entire family dashes home to watch... The Simpsons. And in Monty Python it seemed like every other scene was a parody of a panel discussion show or a documentary. Not that they were the only shows to do this--SCTV comes easily to mind. Actually, as I write this, it occurs to me that the obsessive reproduction (as opposed to expansion) of narratives among fans might just have to do with Python and the Simpsons being comedies. You might theoretically be interested in the further adventures of Disco Stu and the cheese shop owner, but probably only if it's funny.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00715355676802416278noreply@blogger.com