Redemption 1 & Redemption 2: Corin Nemac becomes a member of the team. The problem here is that Corin Nemac is supposed to be Daniel's replacement, but he comes off more flyboy jock than geek. Though Michael Shanks is quite buff (rather startlingly so), he always managed to project more diplomatic/investigator persona than soldier persona. Colin, on the other hand, looks like a gunny from JAG.
Still, he is a sweetie with a dry sense of humor.
Some good problems are presented. Anubis is a fairly boring bad guy, but the episode includes strong McKay-Carter interactions and a smart way to get rid of the Russian gate. (I love how the Russians would rather rent out their Stargate than fund their own program: it's so real!)
Descent: Okay underwater adventure. Like the next episode, this episode is prepping us for Stargate: Atlantis.
Frozen: And Stargate becomes the X-Files!
This was the first episode of the entire series that felt like a total non-story to me: stuff happens only for what needs to take place later on.
Nightwalkers: Adrian Cole is an interesting problem. Unfortunately, he will eventually be paid-off in a dismal fashion.
Abyss: One of my all-time, absolute favorite episodes. I love the setting (the gravity manipulation), Baal's clothes (seriously; they are incredibly sexy), and, of course, Daniel and Jack's deadpan interchanges.
The episode makes complete sense in terms of characterization. Jack isn't the ascending type. And Daniel isn't the sit-back-and-not-get-involved type. I love how it is heavily implied that Daniel helped solve the problem of getting Jack out.
Shadow Play: Another great example of Dean Stockwell's acting ability. He does an excellent job playing a non-playboy scientist.
(Even if this episode is a retelling of A Beautiful Mind. For awhile, after A Beautiful Mind came out, everybody was doing these types of episodes!)
The Other Guys: A fabulous episode! Patick McKenna and John Billingsley are hilarious. I love the Trek references though my favorite line is Jack's: "Why look everybody—he's got Coombs with him!"
I mustn't forget Felger shooting randomly when he and Coombs arrive on the ship and Coombs walking down the middle of the corridor while Felger tries to act cool by skulking in the shadows.
My only problem is that the ending implies the whole thing was a dream. According to the commentary, the events happened, just not the kiss.
Allegiance: Tok'ra and Jaffa tale. Interesting tensions are presented. There are some GREAT Jack moments which underscore his role as a natural leader. Also, Melek—a fairly interesting character—is introduced.
Cure: This episode opens with another great Jack moment. The writers are definitely compensating for the loss of Shanks by giving viewers extra-Jack.
The episode has an "ends justify the means" plot with no definitive villains. I like how the "ends" themselves are quite problematic which is very real (no such thing as utopias on Stargate).
This episode also explains the origin of the Tok'ra which is fairly interesting. The Queen of the Tok'ra is a real class act.
Prometheus: This is a conspiracy theory episode. Unfortunately, the SGC as a big secret society breaks the magic for me. A faux fun secret society like in Men in Black is one thing; a real secret society turns the good guys into people invested in protecting their specialness: erk.
But at least I now know where the spaceship—which shows up in Stargate: Atlantis—came from!
Unnatural Selection: Replicators again! At least now they have a human face, but the story is rather shaggy and depressing and obviously just done to set up problems later on.
Another Teal'c like: Ben & Jerry's!
Sight Unseen: A rehash of earlier Stargate ideas—bugs, confused civilians, otherworld devices that cause problems on earth—not all that interesting an episode.
Smoke & Mirrors: An N.I.D./Senator Kinsey episode. Great beginning! There's a nice pay-off at the end.
And I get a kick out of the continual mention of "Daniel Jackson" (yes, folks, he is coming back).
Paradise Lost: Maybourne shows up! I like how Maybourne can't stay away from the SGC. Criminals return to what they know.
Which brings up: would it really be a good idea to set Maybourne loose in the universe?
Metamorphosis: Nirrti shows up! And dies!! What a way for her to go!!!
It really is quite a good pay-off.
Disclosure: A flashback episode. Generally, I dislike these, but this one includes a nice summary/overview of the Stargate universe/mythos.
And I love the diplomacy at work: let the United States fund the intergalactic space program; they will have all the responsibility while we reap the rewards of their research! (Hmmm. Seems familiar . . .)
Forsaken: Pretty interesting problem, but, again, a rehash of a previous problem with a rather abrupt pay-off.
The Changeling: One of the best Stargate episodes ever! I love Teal'c's heroism. I love how the episode pays off with Jonas delivering similar lines to those he speaks at the beginning of the episode.
I also love how everyone plays the perfect role in T's alternate universe (of course, Jack would be fire chief!) and how Daniel is actually playing himself, ascended, as well as "the resident psychologist."
Great episode!!
Memento: Interesting look at first contact with a people who behave much like Earthlings. I admire the philosophy behind the episode (the Stargate philosophy is that exploration is better than playing it safe, no matter what the consequences). However, I wish that Kalfas hadn't been dismissed/overcome so easily. Just because we know SG-1 are the good guys (hey, we watch the show!) doesn't mean Kalfas should trust them.
Prophecy: Good episode, but it also illustrates a problem that plagues Season 6.
Jonas was brought in to replace Michael Shanks: he took Daniel Jackson's position on SG-1; he also took Michael Shank's position on the show in terms of plots/lines.
And at first, this worked, but as the season continued, Jonas needed to develop more of his own personality. This particular episode, however, was pure Daniel. Its problem is the kind of problem that would happen to Daniel, not Jonas, and Jonas behaves like Daniel, not like himself.
Naturally, it is possible that the producers knew that Michael Shanks was coming back at this point, but overall—despite some good episodes—the entire season has the feel of treading water.
Full Circle: Final episode of Season 6. Fairly good action sequence. Daniel's decision to finally, ultimately, completely interfere makes sense considering what is at stake.
And Jack gives a great line: "Personally, I think this whole 'ascension' thing is a bit overrated."
However, again, the episode is used to set up things that will happen later on. The show has become a serial.
To a degree this serial business is inevitable. Star Trek: Next Generation managed better than most shows in retaining its one plot/episode approach. Stargate post-Season 4 is something of a compromise. Like Season 5, Season 6 does offer fun/interesting/even great single episodes. But there's this feeling of madly generating story-lines to keep the viewer hooked.
Seasons 1-4 are still the best!
Friday, September 30, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
Update to Poirot Movies (David Suchet)
In a previous post, I reviewed David Suchet's Poirot movies (I'm a big fan of the series). Here is that list updated (there are some spoilers):
Previously Unreviewed:
Appointment with Death
Although the script takes liberties, creating new murderers (from extant characters), I didn't mind so much. For one, this particular story varies considerably between the book version and Christie's own play. For another, the new murderers make sense given the victim.
The only issue I have is, What is Tim Curry doing in this movie? His part is fairly irrelevant. I can only imagine that he offered, and the Poirot people just couldn't turn him down. I mean, would you turn down Tim Curry?
But he is the type of actor who needs to be cast completely correctly and then used completely correctly. He wasn't here.
Murder on the Orient Express
I was somewhat worried about this one. How can any version top the 1974 Albert Finney version? I think Suchet is just as good a Poirot--better in some ways. But the 1974 movie is in itself a tour de force.
The clever Poirot writers solved the problem by examining the plot from a completely new direction: are the conspirators justified? This question haunts the narrative, and Poirot is the right character to contemplate it. The result is a rather dark movie, but one that still keeps mostly to the plot.
Hallowe'en Party
A surprisingly good production with perfect casting of the Judith and Miranda characters (played by Amelia Bullmore and Mary Higgins). I also really enjoyed seeing Zoe Wannamaker again. She has great acerbic delivery.
However, the movie does indicate how/why movies develop completely different tones/auras from their books; it occurs when the movie script fails to take context into account.
In the book Halloween Party, there are a number of dead bodies. There is also a reference to a woman possibly being a lesbian.
In both cases, the material is there, but taking it out of Christie's context gives the movie an odd, unbalanced feel. The dead bodies in the book have mostly happened in the past; there's an almost unreal quality about them (which is part of the ambiance). By constantly showing us the dead bodies, the movie becomes . . . well, kind of silly. It's one thing to have a cozy village mystery with a couple of deaths; it's another to have a cozy village mystery with people dropping like flies. It's the freaking Black Plague! It is also the reason I had to stop watching Midsomer Murders. I adore John Nettles, but the writers were killing off so many people per episode, there wasn't anyone left to blame or investigate or even care.
The second issue--the woman who might be a lesbian--appears in the book but in a comment by a teenage boy who is trying to act grown-up around Poirot. Making it a central issue in the movie was pointless.
I say this at the risk of appearing seemingly intolerant, so . . . I'll just keep going: British television is obsessed with lesbians. The current Miss Marple series has them falling out of every cupboard. And it's bad art.
It is one thing to add in a gay couple for the sake of a story; it's quite another to add them in as some kind of token gesture. The Inspector Alleyn movie Death at the Bar turns two of the main male characters into a gay couple, and it actually makes a ton of sense. The Toby Stephens' character in Five Little Pigs is portrayed as gay, and again, it makes sense (and Toby Stephens does a marvelous job conveying both his affection for the dead man and his self-contempt of what that means).
But sometimes this type of political correctness just gets silly. It also doesn't achieve its purpose--at least with someone like me--because if so-called politically correct tolerance entails creating badly written scripts, then it should stop. (And it's faux tolerance to begin with since no Christie movie--no movie in existence actually--can successfully represent every group/religion/political organization. The end result of so many lesbians but not, say, Mormons is to think that maybe someone in British television has an agenda. That's not tolerance; that's just annoying.)
The Clocks & Three-Act Tragedy
I combine my review of these because they are fairly boring books but fairly respectable movies. The Clocks movie does highlight one of the flaws of the Poirot movies: in an effort to remain chronologically consistent with the series, the later books are not set in the 1950s and 1960s but in the 1940s. This is very sad since Christie did a great job "modernizing" her novel settings while her detectives remained (deliberately) the same. Miss Marple and Poirot had to adjust (with some success) to a rapidly changing culture. Great fun!
But The Clocks movie, instead of being placed in the 1960s, is placed pre-WWII, creating a bewildering change in tone from the book.
Still, the Colin and Sheila characters are done well. And the basic plot is kept which impressed me. One huge change is made to one particular character, but I'm guessing the script-writer went, "That's WAY too much of a coincidence" and left it out. I don't fault the script-writer.
Three-Act Tragedy is extremely well-done. It is much better than the 1980's version which is so boring, I've never seen it all the way through because I fall asleep, and I am NOT the kind of person who falls asleep watching movies. So Suchet's version is a vast improvement. And Martin Shaw does a magnificent job.
So, will they do Curtain?
Prior Reviews:
Peril At End House: The first Poirot/Suchet movie keeps the order of events and the identity of the murderer. It also retains the aura and theme. It isn't the best out of the first set but worth watching.
Mysterious Affair at Styles: This is one of the few movies that actually makes more sense than the book. Mysterious Affair was Christie's first book, and it is rather difficult to follow. In general, although Christie throws out lots of red herrings, her explanations are always crystal-clear. If you have difficulty following the clues in the book, check out the movie: it helps.
The ABC Murders: The best of the first set, really excellent. It demonstrates a great appreciation for the book--everything is spot on.
Death in the Clouds: Okay, but surprisingly boring. Well, its setting revolves about tennis, so what do you expect? Doesn't play havoc with the book at least.
One, Two, Buckle My Shoe: Pretty good, but then it has the amazing Eccleston and the equally amazing Peter Blythe. It also has one of Christie's better double-identity tricks; even if you figure out the double-identity, you won't be sure what it is being used for immediately.
Hercule Poirot's Christmas: Okay, but something of a disappointment for me. This is one of my favorite books, and although the murderer's identity is kept, a missing character changes the overall aura of the piece.
Hickory Dickory Dock: One of the few movies I think is more interesting than the book. It does an excellent job retaining the aura of student life from the book plus it uses Miss Lemon absolutely correctly. Colin Firth's brother, Jonathan, stars. Yeah, that's right, the brother who WASN'T Darcy. Still, he's managed to have a fairly successful career, and there's something to be said for NOT being the typed-cast brother. For Life fans, Damian Lewis also stars and does a great job.
Murder on the Links: Well-done if a little dull. Retains both the plot and aura of the original.
Dumb Witness: Well-done if a little dull. The dog is cute.
This concludes what I think of as the first set although I believe the above movies are sold in two sets. However, there is a four-year difference between Dumb Witness and the next movie; also, the feel of the movies changes, hence the separation here between "early" films and "later" films.
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd: Not bad. The first-person voice-over differs from the book for obvious reasons. It kind of works. Basic plot points are retained. All in all, an okay production.
Lord Edgware Dies: Extremely well-done. Helen Grace as Jane Wilkinson does a superb job. Plot, murderer, and aura are all retained. The best movie since The ABC Murders.
Evil Under the Sun: Okay movie, but the femme fatale isn't done correctly. I'm not sure the writers understood Christie's character. She's supposed to be THE woman that women-love-to-hate, the bad girl who breaks up marriages except . . . strip away the glamour, and she's actually rather pitiable. For a better rendering of this character type, check out the series episode "Triangle at Rhodes."
Murder in Mesopotamia: I think I would like this movie more if it wasn't one of my favorite books. The book is told entirely from the nurse's point of view, and the nurse has a very distinct voice and perspective. She makes the book live. The movie, however, is told all from Poirot's point of view. I understand this on one level; the writers have to use the guy who is being show-cased. But it is still a disappointment. That said, the movie is worth watching. It keeps the main plot points and the aura.
Five Little Pigs: This is one of the best of the later movies. It is the most artistic of the films and effectively captures a nostalgic aura that works well with the plot. It keeps the plotting of the book as Poirot questions each "pig" in turn. There is a subtle change regarding the Philip Blake character (played by the superb Toby Stephens). However, the change actually makes sense and doesn't play havoc with Christie's text at all. The actor who plays Amyas Crale isn't at all how I see Amyas Crale physically, but he captures the character.
Sad Cypress: Overall, the plot is well-rendered. However, a major change between the book and movie tells me the writers missed the point. I discuss that change more in my post "Thoughts on Agatha Christie and Literature".
Death on the Nile: Better than the 1978 version. Plus the 2004 version has JJ Feild! It's such a sad movie, I rarely rewatch it. Plus none of the movies has my favorite line. When Jacqueline is speaking to Poirot at the end of the book, she says, "I followed a bad star," and then she mocks a line given earlier in the book: "That bad star, that bad star fall down." When I read Death on the Nile as a teenager, that line captured the essence of Jacqueline's character for me.
The Hollow: Pretty good. Like with Death on the Nile, it is missing some good lines from the book. Otherwise, the characters and plot are skillfully handled. It is also very sad. But then, so is the book!
The Mystery of the Blue Train: Not bad although I'm not as familiar with this book as the others. A romance change is made that I dislike (this becomes more common in the later movies).
Cards on the Table: Great book. So-so movie. A number of fundamentals are needlessly changed (this becomes more common in the later movies). The motive for the murder is changed but not the murderer. It kind of works.
Actually, I think the movie would be a dud if it wasn't for the awesome Zoe Wannamaker. She plays Mrs. Oliver; she doesn't look like Mrs. Oliver, but she captures her character exactly (and it's Zoe Wannamaker!). Alexander Siddig makes an appearance as Mr. Shaitana and does a great job (he also reminds you how tall he is; in Deep Space Nine, he is one over-6-foot man amongst many over-6-foot people--except for Nana Visitor).
After the Funeral: One of my favorite movies though substantial changes are made to Susannah and George's characters. I like the changes, and I don't think they undermine anything. The clever motive and clever murderer are retained, and the clever murderer is done exactly right.
Taken at the Flood: Surprisingly well-rendered. This is Christie's scary psycho piece, and Elliot Cowan as David Hunter, the psycho, is chillingly good. By the way, this movie captures Christie's ideas of emotional (and sexual) enthrallment (see my comments about Sad Cypress). A romance change is made that I regret, but I can understand why the writers did it.
Mrs. McGinty's Dead: Well-rendered. This movie also retains very funny dialog from the book. One is the argument between Mrs. Oliver and Robin about the adaptation of her books to plays (Agatha Christie used Mrs. Oliver to spout off about writing); the other is Poirot's line to a suspect: "It is amazing to me that you could be hanged because you do not pay enough attention to the things people say to you!"
Cat Among the Pigeons: I admit this is one book I would be tempted to play with if I were the writers. I have this entire subplot involving Adam and Julia. However . . . in terms of faithfulness to Christie's vision, the movie is pretty good. The plot and murderer's identity are retained but not, I think, the aura. The removal of one character kind of destroys the original feel. Also, although Harriet Walter does a magnificent job as Miss Bulstrode, I'm not sure she is the Miss Bulstrode of the book, and this kind of matters.
Third Girl: Tremendous disappointment! The movie destroys the book. The book is extremely well-plotted and very clever; the resulting movie-mess is just that: a mess. Things happen for no good reason. The new motives are slender and convoluted. The double-identity (a Christie special) is disregarded. Mrs. Oliver is misused. Doctor Stillingfleet, a very important character, is discarded. The entire ambiance as well as the book's time period have been thrown out. Jemima Rooper, who I quite like, is completely wrong for the part of Norma. The movie is a huge wreck.
I can only assume the recent Miss Marple people took over. Please, if you don't admire Christie enough to reread her books several times, savoring her plots and characters and recognizing her for the incredible craftswoman she was . . . if you are arrogant and blind enough to think you can "improve" on her plots, stop producing Christie movies!
Previously Unreviewed:
Appointment with Death
Although the script takes liberties, creating new murderers (from extant characters), I didn't mind so much. For one, this particular story varies considerably between the book version and Christie's own play. For another, the new murderers make sense given the victim.
The only issue I have is, What is Tim Curry doing in this movie? His part is fairly irrelevant. I can only imagine that he offered, and the Poirot people just couldn't turn him down. I mean, would you turn down Tim Curry?
But he is the type of actor who needs to be cast completely correctly and then used completely correctly. He wasn't here.
Murder on the Orient Express
I was somewhat worried about this one. How can any version top the 1974 Albert Finney version? I think Suchet is just as good a Poirot--better in some ways. But the 1974 movie is in itself a tour de force.
The clever Poirot writers solved the problem by examining the plot from a completely new direction: are the conspirators justified? This question haunts the narrative, and Poirot is the right character to contemplate it. The result is a rather dark movie, but one that still keeps mostly to the plot.
Hallowe'en Party
A surprisingly good production with perfect casting of the Judith and Miranda characters (played by Amelia Bullmore and Mary Higgins). I also really enjoyed seeing Zoe Wannamaker again. She has great acerbic delivery.
However, the movie does indicate how/why movies develop completely different tones/auras from their books; it occurs when the movie script fails to take context into account.
In the book Halloween Party, there are a number of dead bodies. There is also a reference to a woman possibly being a lesbian.
In both cases, the material is there, but taking it out of Christie's context gives the movie an odd, unbalanced feel. The dead bodies in the book have mostly happened in the past; there's an almost unreal quality about them (which is part of the ambiance). By constantly showing us the dead bodies, the movie becomes . . . well, kind of silly. It's one thing to have a cozy village mystery with a couple of deaths; it's another to have a cozy village mystery with people dropping like flies. It's the freaking Black Plague! It is also the reason I had to stop watching Midsomer Murders. I adore John Nettles, but the writers were killing off so many people per episode, there wasn't anyone left to blame or investigate or even care.
The second issue--the woman who might be a lesbian--appears in the book but in a comment by a teenage boy who is trying to act grown-up around Poirot. Making it a central issue in the movie was pointless.
I say this at the risk of appearing seemingly intolerant, so . . . I'll just keep going: British television is obsessed with lesbians. The current Miss Marple series has them falling out of every cupboard. And it's bad art.
It is one thing to add in a gay couple for the sake of a story; it's quite another to add them in as some kind of token gesture. The Inspector Alleyn movie Death at the Bar turns two of the main male characters into a gay couple, and it actually makes a ton of sense. The Toby Stephens' character in Five Little Pigs is portrayed as gay, and again, it makes sense (and Toby Stephens does a marvelous job conveying both his affection for the dead man and his self-contempt of what that means).
But sometimes this type of political correctness just gets silly. It also doesn't achieve its purpose--at least with someone like me--because if so-called politically correct tolerance entails creating badly written scripts, then it should stop. (And it's faux tolerance to begin with since no Christie movie--no movie in existence actually--can successfully represent every group/religion/political organization. The end result of so many lesbians but not, say, Mormons is to think that maybe someone in British television has an agenda. That's not tolerance; that's just annoying.)
The Clocks & Three-Act Tragedy
I combine my review of these because they are fairly boring books but fairly respectable movies. The Clocks movie does highlight one of the flaws of the Poirot movies: in an effort to remain chronologically consistent with the series, the later books are not set in the 1950s and 1960s but in the 1940s. This is very sad since Christie did a great job "modernizing" her novel settings while her detectives remained (deliberately) the same. Miss Marple and Poirot had to adjust (with some success) to a rapidly changing culture. Great fun!
But The Clocks movie, instead of being placed in the 1960s, is placed pre-WWII, creating a bewildering change in tone from the book.
Still, the Colin and Sheila characters are done well. And the basic plot is kept which impressed me. One huge change is made to one particular character, but I'm guessing the script-writer went, "That's WAY too much of a coincidence" and left it out. I don't fault the script-writer.
Three-Act Tragedy is extremely well-done. It is much better than the 1980's version which is so boring, I've never seen it all the way through because I fall asleep, and I am NOT the kind of person who falls asleep watching movies. So Suchet's version is a vast improvement. And Martin Shaw does a magnificent job.
So, will they do Curtain?
Prior Reviews:
Peril At End House: The first Poirot/Suchet movie keeps the order of events and the identity of the murderer. It also retains the aura and theme. It isn't the best out of the first set but worth watching.
Mysterious Affair at Styles: This is one of the few movies that actually makes more sense than the book. Mysterious Affair was Christie's first book, and it is rather difficult to follow. In general, although Christie throws out lots of red herrings, her explanations are always crystal-clear. If you have difficulty following the clues in the book, check out the movie: it helps.
The ABC Murders: The best of the first set, really excellent. It demonstrates a great appreciation for the book--everything is spot on.
Death in the Clouds: Okay, but surprisingly boring. Well, its setting revolves about tennis, so what do you expect? Doesn't play havoc with the book at least.
One, Two, Buckle My Shoe: Pretty good, but then it has the amazing Eccleston and the equally amazing Peter Blythe. It also has one of Christie's better double-identity tricks; even if you figure out the double-identity, you won't be sure what it is being used for immediately.
Hercule Poirot's Christmas: Okay, but something of a disappointment for me. This is one of my favorite books, and although the murderer's identity is kept, a missing character changes the overall aura of the piece.
Hickory Dickory Dock: One of the few movies I think is more interesting than the book. It does an excellent job retaining the aura of student life from the book plus it uses Miss Lemon absolutely correctly. Colin Firth's brother, Jonathan, stars. Yeah, that's right, the brother who WASN'T Darcy. Still, he's managed to have a fairly successful career, and there's something to be said for NOT being the typed-cast brother. For Life fans, Damian Lewis also stars and does a great job.
Murder on the Links: Well-done if a little dull. Retains both the plot and aura of the original.
Dumb Witness: Well-done if a little dull. The dog is cute.
This concludes what I think of as the first set although I believe the above movies are sold in two sets. However, there is a four-year difference between Dumb Witness and the next movie; also, the feel of the movies changes, hence the separation here between "early" films and "later" films.
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd: Not bad. The first-person voice-over differs from the book for obvious reasons. It kind of works. Basic plot points are retained. All in all, an okay production.
Lord Edgware Dies: Extremely well-done. Helen Grace as Jane Wilkinson does a superb job. Plot, murderer, and aura are all retained. The best movie since The ABC Murders.
Evil Under the Sun: Okay movie, but the femme fatale isn't done correctly. I'm not sure the writers understood Christie's character. She's supposed to be THE woman that women-love-to-hate, the bad girl who breaks up marriages except . . . strip away the glamour, and she's actually rather pitiable. For a better rendering of this character type, check out the series episode "Triangle at Rhodes."
Murder in Mesopotamia: I think I would like this movie more if it wasn't one of my favorite books. The book is told entirely from the nurse's point of view, and the nurse has a very distinct voice and perspective. She makes the book live. The movie, however, is told all from Poirot's point of view. I understand this on one level; the writers have to use the guy who is being show-cased. But it is still a disappointment. That said, the movie is worth watching. It keeps the main plot points and the aura.
Five Little Pigs: This is one of the best of the later movies. It is the most artistic of the films and effectively captures a nostalgic aura that works well with the plot. It keeps the plotting of the book as Poirot questions each "pig" in turn. There is a subtle change regarding the Philip Blake character (played by the superb Toby Stephens). However, the change actually makes sense and doesn't play havoc with Christie's text at all. The actor who plays Amyas Crale isn't at all how I see Amyas Crale physically, but he captures the character.
Sad Cypress: Overall, the plot is well-rendered. However, a major change between the book and movie tells me the writers missed the point. I discuss that change more in my post "Thoughts on Agatha Christie and Literature".
Death on the Nile: Better than the 1978 version. Plus the 2004 version has JJ Feild! It's such a sad movie, I rarely rewatch it. Plus none of the movies has my favorite line. When Jacqueline is speaking to Poirot at the end of the book, she says, "I followed a bad star," and then she mocks a line given earlier in the book: "That bad star, that bad star fall down." When I read Death on the Nile as a teenager, that line captured the essence of Jacqueline's character for me.
The Hollow: Pretty good. Like with Death on the Nile, it is missing some good lines from the book. Otherwise, the characters and plot are skillfully handled. It is also very sad. But then, so is the book!
The Mystery of the Blue Train: Not bad although I'm not as familiar with this book as the others. A romance change is made that I dislike (this becomes more common in the later movies).
Cards on the Table: Great book. So-so movie. A number of fundamentals are needlessly changed (this becomes more common in the later movies). The motive for the murder is changed but not the murderer. It kind of works.
Actually, I think the movie would be a dud if it wasn't for the awesome Zoe Wannamaker. She plays Mrs. Oliver; she doesn't look like Mrs. Oliver, but she captures her character exactly (and it's Zoe Wannamaker!). Alexander Siddig makes an appearance as Mr. Shaitana and does a great job (he also reminds you how tall he is; in Deep Space Nine, he is one over-6-foot man amongst many over-6-foot people--except for Nana Visitor).
After the Funeral: One of my favorite movies though substantial changes are made to Susannah and George's characters. I like the changes, and I don't think they undermine anything. The clever motive and clever murderer are retained, and the clever murderer is done exactly right.
Taken at the Flood: Surprisingly well-rendered. This is Christie's scary psycho piece, and Elliot Cowan as David Hunter, the psycho, is chillingly good. By the way, this movie captures Christie's ideas of emotional (and sexual) enthrallment (see my comments about Sad Cypress). A romance change is made that I regret, but I can understand why the writers did it.
Mrs. McGinty's Dead: Well-rendered. This movie also retains very funny dialog from the book. One is the argument between Mrs. Oliver and Robin about the adaptation of her books to plays (Agatha Christie used Mrs. Oliver to spout off about writing); the other is Poirot's line to a suspect: "It is amazing to me that you could be hanged because you do not pay enough attention to the things people say to you!"
Cat Among the Pigeons: I admit this is one book I would be tempted to play with if I were the writers. I have this entire subplot involving Adam and Julia. However . . . in terms of faithfulness to Christie's vision, the movie is pretty good. The plot and murderer's identity are retained but not, I think, the aura. The removal of one character kind of destroys the original feel. Also, although Harriet Walter does a magnificent job as Miss Bulstrode, I'm not sure she is the Miss Bulstrode of the book, and this kind of matters.
Third Girl: Tremendous disappointment! The movie destroys the book. The book is extremely well-plotted and very clever; the resulting movie-mess is just that: a mess. Things happen for no good reason. The new motives are slender and convoluted. The double-identity (a Christie special) is disregarded. Mrs. Oliver is misused. Doctor Stillingfleet, a very important character, is discarded. The entire ambiance as well as the book's time period have been thrown out. Jemima Rooper, who I quite like, is completely wrong for the part of Norma. The movie is a huge wreck.
I can only assume the recent Miss Marple people took over. Please, if you don't admire Christie enough to reread her books several times, savoring her plots and characters and recognizing her for the incredible craftswoman she was . . . if you are arrogant and blind enough to think you can "improve" on her plots, stop producing Christie movies!
Saturday, September 17, 2011
The "Incident" Romance vs. the Relationship Romance
I am not a fan of romances which involve a series of incidents, embroiling the hero and heroine in mayhem, mischief, and miscommunication before depositing them at the altar.
This kind of romance can be entertaining. Georgette Heyer wrote a number of these adventure-type romances, and many of them are downright hilarious: Heroes pick up stray heiresses who are being chased by villainous rascals; heroines get transported to unlikely spots by dastardly rogues and are rescued by roguish, but non-dastardly, passerbys. Etc. etc. etc.
Yet even with Georgette Heyer, I get tired of all the mix-ups involving other people. I want to see the hero and heroine work together or just go somewhere and talk. It's okay to have a villain lurking in the underbrush, but I want to read about them; I don't much care about all those other people.
I recently read a romance novel--which will go unnamed--in which a hilarious debacle ensued whenever the hero and heroine were about to get together. It was the whole "this time, she'll really be upset/this time, he'll really offend her!" idea.
I didn't find it amusing. I find it amusing on Frasier because a Frasier episode is 30 minutes, there's a pay-off, and I can skip the episodes where people excessively humiliate themselves. But I don't want to read several hundred pages of the stuff. After funny-hilarious debacle #4 of the above unnamed novel, I wanted to shoot someone. WHO CARES? If these people can't work out their issues before one more crazy thing upsets them (again), they certainly shouldn't be contemplating marriage. (What? They think marriage will be easy or something?)
It reminds me of a review of How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days. The reviewer rolled his eyes over how, at the end, instead of laughing like adults over how they had been set up, instead of saying, "That's so great! We are so lucky to have such great friends!" the hero and heroine got offended and had to stalk off in their separate directions before fate intervened.
These people should not be getting married. What about the next time an outsider interferes? What about the next moment of miscommunication?
These types of romances remind me of an ex-college-roommate who wanted someone to buy her apartment lease. Depending on her mood, she would come home and say, "Well, my lease didn't sell. God is telling me not to leave" OR "Well, my lease didn't sell. God wants me to overcome obstacles." It never occurred to her to either just wait 4 months for the lease to be up and then move on or to try to actively get someone to move into the apartment. And I never understood why it was God's problem to begin with.
Likewise, I'm not wedded to romances that, as Eugene states in his Last Promise review, include "a medieval theme . . . of the Great Wheel of Fate. Climb aboard at the wrong instance and your life is doomed until it rolls around and rights itself. We are supposed to admire the protagonist merely for hanging on and letting go when the sunny side of life shows up like a stop on a Disneyland amusement ride."
Well, okay, we are supposed to admire the protagonist for being so plucky and attractive to the hero. And it isn't so much the lack of pro-action that bothers me but the lack of any real reason why, finally, the ride has stopped. Now, the hero and heroine will unite. Uh, yay . . . (Is it finally time?)
Give me instead a hero and heroine who fight to overcome a specific problem by making sacrifices, communicating, and learning more about each other. Sure, I know that once that specific problem is overcome, others will crop up. But at least I'm convinced that this couple will be able to handle those problems.
This kind of romance can be entertaining. Georgette Heyer wrote a number of these adventure-type romances, and many of them are downright hilarious: Heroes pick up stray heiresses who are being chased by villainous rascals; heroines get transported to unlikely spots by dastardly rogues and are rescued by roguish, but non-dastardly, passerbys. Etc. etc. etc.
Yet even with Georgette Heyer, I get tired of all the mix-ups involving other people. I want to see the hero and heroine work together or just go somewhere and talk. It's okay to have a villain lurking in the underbrush, but I want to read about them; I don't much care about all those other people.
I recently read a romance novel--which will go unnamed--in which a hilarious debacle ensued whenever the hero and heroine were about to get together. It was the whole "this time, she'll really be upset/this time, he'll really offend her!" idea.
I didn't find it amusing. I find it amusing on Frasier because a Frasier episode is 30 minutes, there's a pay-off, and I can skip the episodes where people excessively humiliate themselves. But I don't want to read several hundred pages of the stuff. After funny-hilarious debacle #4 of the above unnamed novel, I wanted to shoot someone. WHO CARES? If these people can't work out their issues before one more crazy thing upsets them (again), they certainly shouldn't be contemplating marriage. (What? They think marriage will be easy or something?)
It reminds me of a review of How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days. The reviewer rolled his eyes over how, at the end, instead of laughing like adults over how they had been set up, instead of saying, "That's so great! We are so lucky to have such great friends!" the hero and heroine got offended and had to stalk off in their separate directions before fate intervened.
These people should not be getting married. What about the next time an outsider interferes? What about the next moment of miscommunication?
These types of romances remind me of an ex-college-roommate who wanted someone to buy her apartment lease. Depending on her mood, she would come home and say, "Well, my lease didn't sell. God is telling me not to leave" OR "Well, my lease didn't sell. God wants me to overcome obstacles." It never occurred to her to either just wait 4 months for the lease to be up and then move on or to try to actively get someone to move into the apartment. And I never understood why it was God's problem to begin with.
Likewise, I'm not wedded to romances that, as Eugene states in his Last Promise review, include "a medieval theme . . . of the Great Wheel of Fate. Climb aboard at the wrong instance and your life is doomed until it rolls around and rights itself. We are supposed to admire the protagonist merely for hanging on and letting go when the sunny side of life shows up like a stop on a Disneyland amusement ride."
Well, okay, we are supposed to admire the protagonist for being so plucky and attractive to the hero. And it isn't so much the lack of pro-action that bothers me but the lack of any real reason why, finally, the ride has stopped. Now, the hero and heroine will unite. Uh, yay . . . (Is it finally time?)
Give me instead a hero and heroine who fight to overcome a specific problem by making sacrifices, communicating, and learning more about each other. Sure, I know that once that specific problem is overcome, others will crop up. But at least I'm convinced that this couple will be able to handle those problems.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Guest Blogger: Mike Discusses 10 Fundamental Flaws of Wonder Woman
Not too long ago, Kate asked me to recommend some good Wonder Woman stories. As an avid comics fan, I can usually recommend dozens of different comics/graphic novels for either the hard core fan or the interested newcomer. Despite this, Kate caught me at a loss. Perhaps the most surprising thing about my inability to fulfill her request was that I was unaware of it! I believe my answer was "Oh, sure! Umm--" Right about then I realized I was in trouble.
I received a similar response from many comics fan friends. Not only were we unable to think of a defining WW run, none of us even realized it until we were asked. As we looked into the matter further, we found there is no defining WW story. For the most part, she just is, much like background noise in a phone call.
I believe, as Kate has suggested, that WW’s success really stems from the Lynda Carter television show. With a toned-down origin and clever acting, the character resonated with women of the time, enduring to this day. The resemblance of this character to the comics portrayal, however, is minimal. As she exists in the comics, WW has continually failed to be a character that fans can relate to and care about, despite having some very strong writers through the years.
Following are 10 reasons Wonder Woman is inaccessible to a larger audience. Understand that these are the views of a thirty-something married man who has read comics most of his life and not a sexist teenager flipping through comics for skin and tight costumes.
Speaking of costumes . . .
1. Wonder Woman's costume is impractical.
I know many women protest it because they feel it’s sexist. Many men support it because it’s sexy. I, however, find it completely impractical. First, it’s a glorified swimsuit. While WW is super-powered, her costume should still be designed to provide some sort of protection and cover. If she’s going to bother with boots, surely she feels SOME leg covering is needed? The breastplate itself is metal. If a hero is going to bother with armor, surely she would wear it in more than one place?
Also, the color scheme makes no sense. While this has been explained a thousand different ways, the costume was originally designed to sell comics to patriotic comics fans. But story-wise, no matter HOW you explain it, there is no reason an Amazon warrior from Greek mythology would be wearing the stars and stripes. In addition, WW’s look is not even consistent with what the other Amazons wear in the comics. All of WW’s friends wear armor and Greek-inspired dress. Surely she would too?
2. Wonder Woman lacks an understandable motive.
Wonder Women is a Greek warrior molded from clay, given life by the gods of Greek myth, and raised on an island inhabited by nothing but women. While she has been known to have a private life in "the world of man," she divides most of her time between Themyscira and whatever Justice League headquarters are being used at the time. In other words, WW is completely cut off from mortal men and women and has no relationship or understanding of them. Why would she defend them or risk exposure of her people and the existence of the Greek gods when they have gone to such lengths to be hidden for so long? Especially for a race of beings that WW has every reason to believe is beneath her?
[Note from Kate: I think a series devoted to just this problem would be very interesting! Wonder Woman has to decide between isolationism/secrecy and humanity/exposure, between demi-god aristocracy and of-the-people mediocrity/meritocracy. However, it could end with her turning her back on her origins...]
3. Wonder Woman lacks connection with humanity.
Likewise, with WW so cut off from humanity and all the cares and concerns of a mortal life, how are everyday fans expected to relate and connect to her? To be fair, some efforts have been made to give WW a secret identity and to involve her in the mortal world, but all these efforts reek of the "new girl in town" mentality and fail to really establish a connection between WW and humanity.
Wonder Women has a perfect physique, no need to work or pay the bills, and hangs out with arguably the most perfect and noble men on the planet. The closest thing to children she has is a sidekick (Wonder Girl) who operates almost completely independent of WW. As a reader, there is no "hook," nothing to make me care about the character or relate to her.
4. Wonder Woman lacks a good rival.
Wonder Women’s rogues gallery consists of Greek Gods and monsters, magic-powered villains, and totemic-powered individuals (like the Cheetah) who usually have no real reason to be robbing banks, meddling in politics, or really even trying to destroy the world. In fact, many of them share the same distance from humanity that WW herself has. Not only are none of them truly compelling, none of them provide a convincing or emotionally-fueled rivalry with WW.
5. Wonder Woman's combination of powers makes no sense.
Wonder Woman has super-strength, the enhanced senses of animals, nearly invulnerable skin, the ability to fly, and the Aphrodite-given gift of beauty (really). She also has a tiara that can be used as a boomerang-like throwing weapon, indestructible bracelets, and the lasso of truth.
I don’t even know where to start! WW being close to invulnerable would explain the skimpy costume…but if she doesn’t need armor, why does she need the bracelets? The lasso would seem to indicate that WW needs some trick to capture villains, yet she can’t leave them tied up with the lasso (it is gold, after all), and since she’s already beat them with her super strength before tying them up, why would she need a truth spell on men who already know she can kick their ass? I’m at a loss.
Not to mention, the tiara hardly seems like an accessory of someone trying to embody female empowerment.
[Note from Kate: there is a brand of feminism which touts girl-power: pinkness, Barbie, and make-up. However, WW doesn't really belong to this school of thought. Her rather odd creator was somewhat more fascinated with WW's dominatrix skills rather than her Barbie-like attributes. Still, making her a proponent of this brand of feminism would be a possible solution! If it was allowed, that is . . . see Mike's notes under 7 & 8 below.].
6. Wonder Woman’s role in the superhero community is redundant.
She’s not as strong as Superman, Super Girl, or Power Girl, and while she can be a brilliant tactician, Batman still has her beat. Although she does have a connection to magic through the Greek Gods, this is easily rivaled by Captain Marvel (SHAZAM!) or Zatana. Even as the holder of the lasso of truth, questioning prisoners for information is far easier if you just have Martian Manhunter read the villain’s mind. Essentially WW is on the team because she’s been around for a LONG time. Even as the token female on the team, there are dozens of female characters better developed, more powerful, and easier to relate to for fans than WW.
7. Wonder Women is kept from the possibility of a romance.
Writing romantic relationships for Wonder Woman is so fraught with complications, the relationships often end up either jokes or controversy. I get annoyed by the idea that a strong female must either be gay or single. Yet, I also don’t believe that a woman MUST be in a relationship to define herself. However, Wonder Woman's untouchability (as both a hero and an icon) has so politically charged her love life, there is no possible relationship that would not end with fans marching on DC Comics’ headquarters. Consequently, WW is often without a romantic interest, robbing her of yet another thing that would provide depth and humanity to the character.
8. Wonder Woman isn't allowed to change.
While DC Comics and most writers understand that Wonder Woman is flawed, the fans fight any suggestion of change. Changes need to be made, but die-hard fans become defensive at the slightest alteration and often lash out so strongly that any long term changes to the character are usually reversed within a year or less. In the last five years, Wonder Woman has been blind, worn a cape and a sword, become a secret agent in her free time, murdered a super-villain on live television, and lost her powers and role of Wonder Woman. Yet all of these plot points were soon reversed, bringing WW back to her traditional status quo.
9. Wonder Woman can never escape being Wonder Woman.
The idea of Wonder Woman proving herself to be just as good as men continually affects the quality of her books. The extent to which this issue is explored varies with the writer. However, if a writer chooses to tone down the issue, he or she draws attention to the fact, often with a line like "Oh, I don’t have to prove I’m as good as you guys. I’m worried about doing my job!" which is still a very verbal political statement about the argument! There’s no way to escape it; it’s tied to the character.
10. Ultimately, Wonder Woman's is a mass of contradictions.
She is a well-endowed, beautiful princess who runs around in a swimsuit (that barely fits her), yet the character resents the derogatory idea of being viewed as a sex symbol. She is an Amazonian Warrior that actively fights crime, sometimes with a sword, even going so far as to kill, yet she is on a mission of peace to humanity (a humanity that she has little to nothing to do with). She is a model of female empowerment in an industry where the majority of the customer base is men. She was sent to protect and care for man, yet she does not trust mankind and has little to no interaction with the everyday person. She is presented as an American Icon, wearing the red, white, and blue, yet she was raised in a religious and political culture bearing no resemblance to the American system or its religious roots as "one nation under God." Ultimately, Wonder Woman has no consistent or relevant reason for existing, no mission statement that guides the character.
While any of these reasons alone would signal trouble for a character, combined they form a picture of an outdated and poorly constructed character that is so far removed from its readers that no real bond of affection can be formed. There is, however, some good news.
Hope for Wonder Woman
In recent months, the Wonder Woman franchise has been handed to J. Michael Straczynski, the writer of Babylon 5 and the mind behind the recent comeback of Thor as well as a hugely successful Spiderman run that ran for several years. Whenever Starczynski is handed a project, his trademark is moving the character into the present, using classic and new elements to create something accessible to everyone. His Thor run is a perfect example of how well he can pull this off.
With Wonder Woman, he had A LOT of work to do. And while the public is still reeling from many of the changes, which are drastic, I can tell you the changes have addressed nearly every concern listed above. In the New Wonder Women series, time has been altered and Paradise Island has been destroyed. Diana (Wonder Woman) has been raised by refugees of the Amazon culture in the underbelly of New York. WW has become a street-wise warrior, searching to fulfill her destiny to save her people and defeat the evil that has changed her world.
My hope is that these changes will be long lasting, avoiding the normal cycle of changing things up and returning back to status quo. Wonder Woman needed some serious retooling, and it seems that it has finally happened. Here’s hoping it lasts.
[Note from Kate: Thanks for the suggestion, Mike! I have requested Straczynski's 1st volume through my local library!]
I received a similar response from many comics fan friends. Not only were we unable to think of a defining WW run, none of us even realized it until we were asked. As we looked into the matter further, we found there is no defining WW story. For the most part, she just is, much like background noise in a phone call.
I believe, as Kate has suggested, that WW’s success really stems from the Lynda Carter television show. With a toned-down origin and clever acting, the character resonated with women of the time, enduring to this day. The resemblance of this character to the comics portrayal, however, is minimal. As she exists in the comics, WW has continually failed to be a character that fans can relate to and care about, despite having some very strong writers through the years.
Following are 10 reasons Wonder Woman is inaccessible to a larger audience. Understand that these are the views of a thirty-something married man who has read comics most of his life and not a sexist teenager flipping through comics for skin and tight costumes.
Speaking of costumes . . .
1. Wonder Woman's costume is impractical.
I know many women protest it because they feel it’s sexist. Many men support it because it’s sexy. I, however, find it completely impractical. First, it’s a glorified swimsuit. While WW is super-powered, her costume should still be designed to provide some sort of protection and cover. If she’s going to bother with boots, surely she feels SOME leg covering is needed? The breastplate itself is metal. If a hero is going to bother with armor, surely she would wear it in more than one place?
Also, the color scheme makes no sense. While this has been explained a thousand different ways, the costume was originally designed to sell comics to patriotic comics fans. But story-wise, no matter HOW you explain it, there is no reason an Amazon warrior from Greek mythology would be wearing the stars and stripes. In addition, WW’s look is not even consistent with what the other Amazons wear in the comics. All of WW’s friends wear armor and Greek-inspired dress. Surely she would too?
2. Wonder Woman lacks an understandable motive.
Wonder Women is a Greek warrior molded from clay, given life by the gods of Greek myth, and raised on an island inhabited by nothing but women. While she has been known to have a private life in "the world of man," she divides most of her time between Themyscira and whatever Justice League headquarters are being used at the time. In other words, WW is completely cut off from mortal men and women and has no relationship or understanding of them. Why would she defend them or risk exposure of her people and the existence of the Greek gods when they have gone to such lengths to be hidden for so long? Especially for a race of beings that WW has every reason to believe is beneath her?
[Note from Kate: I think a series devoted to just this problem would be very interesting! Wonder Woman has to decide between isolationism/secrecy and humanity/exposure, between demi-god aristocracy and of-the-people mediocrity/meritocracy. However, it could end with her turning her back on her origins...]
3. Wonder Woman lacks connection with humanity.
Likewise, with WW so cut off from humanity and all the cares and concerns of a mortal life, how are everyday fans expected to relate and connect to her? To be fair, some efforts have been made to give WW a secret identity and to involve her in the mortal world, but all these efforts reek of the "new girl in town" mentality and fail to really establish a connection between WW and humanity.
Wonder Women has a perfect physique, no need to work or pay the bills, and hangs out with arguably the most perfect and noble men on the planet. The closest thing to children she has is a sidekick (Wonder Girl) who operates almost completely independent of WW. As a reader, there is no "hook," nothing to make me care about the character or relate to her.
4. Wonder Woman lacks a good rival.
Wonder Women’s rogues gallery consists of Greek Gods and monsters, magic-powered villains, and totemic-powered individuals (like the Cheetah) who usually have no real reason to be robbing banks, meddling in politics, or really even trying to destroy the world. In fact, many of them share the same distance from humanity that WW herself has. Not only are none of them truly compelling, none of them provide a convincing or emotionally-fueled rivalry with WW.
5. Wonder Woman's combination of powers makes no sense.
Wonder Woman has super-strength, the enhanced senses of animals, nearly invulnerable skin, the ability to fly, and the Aphrodite-given gift of beauty (really). She also has a tiara that can be used as a boomerang-like throwing weapon, indestructible bracelets, and the lasso of truth.
I don’t even know where to start! WW being close to invulnerable would explain the skimpy costume…but if she doesn’t need armor, why does she need the bracelets? The lasso would seem to indicate that WW needs some trick to capture villains, yet she can’t leave them tied up with the lasso (it is gold, after all), and since she’s already beat them with her super strength before tying them up, why would she need a truth spell on men who already know she can kick their ass? I’m at a loss.
Not to mention, the tiara hardly seems like an accessory of someone trying to embody female empowerment.
[Note from Kate: there is a brand of feminism which touts girl-power: pinkness, Barbie, and make-up. However, WW doesn't really belong to this school of thought. Her rather odd creator was somewhat more fascinated with WW's dominatrix skills rather than her Barbie-like attributes. Still, making her a proponent of this brand of feminism would be a possible solution! If it was allowed, that is . . . see Mike's notes under 7 & 8 below.].
6. Wonder Woman’s role in the superhero community is redundant.
She’s not as strong as Superman, Super Girl, or Power Girl, and while she can be a brilliant tactician, Batman still has her beat. Although she does have a connection to magic through the Greek Gods, this is easily rivaled by Captain Marvel (SHAZAM!) or Zatana. Even as the holder of the lasso of truth, questioning prisoners for information is far easier if you just have Martian Manhunter read the villain’s mind. Essentially WW is on the team because she’s been around for a LONG time. Even as the token female on the team, there are dozens of female characters better developed, more powerful, and easier to relate to for fans than WW.
7. Wonder Women is kept from the possibility of a romance.
Writing romantic relationships for Wonder Woman is so fraught with complications, the relationships often end up either jokes or controversy. I get annoyed by the idea that a strong female must either be gay or single. Yet, I also don’t believe that a woman MUST be in a relationship to define herself. However, Wonder Woman's untouchability (as both a hero and an icon) has so politically charged her love life, there is no possible relationship that would not end with fans marching on DC Comics’ headquarters. Consequently, WW is often without a romantic interest, robbing her of yet another thing that would provide depth and humanity to the character.
8. Wonder Woman isn't allowed to change.
While DC Comics and most writers understand that Wonder Woman is flawed, the fans fight any suggestion of change. Changes need to be made, but die-hard fans become defensive at the slightest alteration and often lash out so strongly that any long term changes to the character are usually reversed within a year or less. In the last five years, Wonder Woman has been blind, worn a cape and a sword, become a secret agent in her free time, murdered a super-villain on live television, and lost her powers and role of Wonder Woman. Yet all of these plot points were soon reversed, bringing WW back to her traditional status quo.
9. Wonder Woman can never escape being Wonder Woman.
The idea of Wonder Woman proving herself to be just as good as men continually affects the quality of her books. The extent to which this issue is explored varies with the writer. However, if a writer chooses to tone down the issue, he or she draws attention to the fact, often with a line like "Oh, I don’t have to prove I’m as good as you guys. I’m worried about doing my job!" which is still a very verbal political statement about the argument! There’s no way to escape it; it’s tied to the character.
10. Ultimately, Wonder Woman's is a mass of contradictions.
She is a well-endowed, beautiful princess who runs around in a swimsuit (that barely fits her), yet the character resents the derogatory idea of being viewed as a sex symbol. She is an Amazonian Warrior that actively fights crime, sometimes with a sword, even going so far as to kill, yet she is on a mission of peace to humanity (a humanity that she has little to nothing to do with). She is a model of female empowerment in an industry where the majority of the customer base is men. She was sent to protect and care for man, yet she does not trust mankind and has little to no interaction with the everyday person. She is presented as an American Icon, wearing the red, white, and blue, yet she was raised in a religious and political culture bearing no resemblance to the American system or its religious roots as "one nation under God." Ultimately, Wonder Woman has no consistent or relevant reason for existing, no mission statement that guides the character.
While any of these reasons alone would signal trouble for a character, combined they form a picture of an outdated and poorly constructed character that is so far removed from its readers that no real bond of affection can be formed. There is, however, some good news.
Hope for Wonder Woman
In recent months, the Wonder Woman franchise has been handed to J. Michael Straczynski, the writer of Babylon 5 and the mind behind the recent comeback of Thor as well as a hugely successful Spiderman run that ran for several years. Whenever Starczynski is handed a project, his trademark is moving the character into the present, using classic and new elements to create something accessible to everyone. His Thor run is a perfect example of how well he can pull this off.
With Wonder Woman, he had A LOT of work to do. And while the public is still reeling from many of the changes, which are drastic, I can tell you the changes have addressed nearly every concern listed above. In the New Wonder Women series, time has been altered and Paradise Island has been destroyed. Diana (Wonder Woman) has been raised by refugees of the Amazon culture in the underbelly of New York. WW has become a street-wise warrior, searching to fulfill her destiny to save her people and defeat the evil that has changed her world.
My hope is that these changes will be long lasting, avoiding the normal cycle of changing things up and returning back to status quo. Wonder Woman needed some serious retooling, and it seems that it has finally happened. Here’s hoping it lasts.
[Note from Kate: Thanks for the suggestion, Mike! I have requested Straczynski's 1st volume through my local library!]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)