Thursday, December 9, 2010

Skins

Hey, I know this is a bit of a radical concept, but how about a review?

I toyed with this one for a while. I wanted so much to be done with it and move on to The Vampire Diaries, but I didn't want to sink eight hours of my life into slides for the damn thing. I considered doing a live-action video review because that'd take substantially less time and still be a video. But then I decided that that was, in fact, a stupid idea. So for the sake of my own sanity, and to get this thing the Hell off of my to-do list, here you go.

The script to The Video That Wasn't: Skins


Okay, kids, confession time. I only made it through the first season of Skins. That’s nine episodes. Doesn’t seem like a lot, I know. But my first impressions after watching the first five episodes were so not good that I didn’t go back to it for almost a week, so even if I hadn’t decided not to watch past the first season, I wouldn’t have been able to anyway. But Skins, yeah.

I’m not really sure why Skins exists. It seems to fall into the same bizarre bracket of entertainment as those coming-of-age movies from the eighties, and similarly, I haven’t the foggiest idea what the plot is. There really doesn’t seem to be much of one, and every time I was asked what I’m watching this week I had to try to force some semblance of coherence out of the mangled mess of character interactions that define the show. Even in the pilot, the episode that is expected to attract the bulk of the initial interest, the first thirteen minutes was character introduction, and even then, the plot that I was introduced to was subverted, then abandoned, then revised, then abandoned again, in the same episode.

Also, the episodes don’t relate to each other, even when they should. There’s nothing wrong with a show that’s purely episodic with no connective plot threads, but when a main character attempts suicide in a dramatic fashion, I expect the next episode to contain at least a mention of it! Instead, I wait an episode and a half before there’s a single line telling me what the Hell happened! Even then, it’s a single line that, in the grand scheme of things, was clearly inserted to, ah, resolve, that plot line. It looked badly patched, as, in fact, it was.

Further, the writers’ grasp of foreshadowing is… okay.  It’s like there was a production meeting and one writer said to another, “Hey, things are getting kind of predictable, what can we do about that?” and the other replied “Hey, let’s have an episode set in Russia for reasons that we won’t adequately explain?” or “Let’s give Angie a fiancĂ© who’ll arrive out of nowhere at an inconvenient time!” It’s appalling.

Skins really reminds me of a sitcom. All the characters are interesting, though predictable. They interact improbably, and anyone who’s not a protagonist is portrayed as an obstacle rather than as a person to a ridiculous degree. In this show the obstacles are parents and most of the teachers, which backfires pretty frequently in the beginning by disrupting my suspension of disbelief. It makes it difficult to sympathize with anyone when everyone’s a cartoon character.

The writing is appalling. It’s truly difficult to listen to. It seems as though the writers were trying too hard to write how people actually speak. Well, they overshot the mark. These characters stammer and repeat themselves, they have terrible diction, and they speak in so fragmented a fashion that I found it difficult sometimes to ponder out their intentions, though that was in significant part the accent and the vernacular. It did get easier to follow the longer I watched, so it’s probably a failing of my being American. Got to admit, though, it seems that the British vernacular contains far more interesting curses than the American does.

Apparently the producers keep the writers of Skins fairly young in an effort to make it more realistic and connect well with the target audience. The problem with that is that if you’re writing for an internationally broadcast television show by the time you’re sixteen, you’re probably not a great barometer of normalcy.

For a show that thinks it’s a comedy, it’s very unfunny. There would be brief, sparkling moments of humor, but they were so brief that by the time I’d thought to laugh, they were gone. The effort typically seems to be a bait-and-switch, where the writers use the levity of the joke to create a stronger contrast and therefore greater effect for a dramatic event. It doesn’t work. Ever.

The characters (and here I’m speaking of the protagonists), are wonderful. They are unique individuals with their own interests. Their interplay and changing dynamic is unfailingly interesting. That said, the acting and direction kept them from being sympathetic until the episode preceding the finale. Prior to that the only character I was invested in was Sid. Cassie held my interest briefly, but the writers used her as a tease and a cheap catalyst, so I lost that interest quickly.

As a whole, the characters (quality and sympathy aside) are disbelief-breaking. They’re all from shockingly dysfunctional families, which seems not only unlikely, but also a cheap way to attempt to drag some actual life out of them. Every time something came up that got me to expect an image of family life that I can sympathize with, the writers and directors took it too far and I was again disappointed.

The acting is great. I know, that sounds like a contradiction, so hold on a bit and I’ll explain myself; the quality of the acting is fantastic, it just doesn’t work. The actors and their personal styles clash with the style of the show, and the dissonance is not just jarring, it’s amateur-ish. The exceptions are, again, Sid and Cassie. Who, I think I can safely say, are wonderful from start to finish.

As for technicals, the only note I took the time to make was on the camera work. “Unfailingly competent.” I mean the structure of the show doesn’t allow for a whole lot of brilliance. They do some interesting tricks, but that’s what they are, and that’s what they look like: tricks. Nothing innovative or fantastic anywhere in sight.

All of that said, there was a meta-break in the show that deserves mention, kudos, and a ticker-tape parade, and that’s director Adam Smith. Remember how I found the first five episodes so distasteful that I decided not to watch too much more? Well, then I watched episode eight. And damn. The writing was still shit, but the direction was fan-fucking-tastic. Suddenly the characters had more depth, the actors performed better, the plot (such as it was) was gripping, and the atmosphere was fantastic. And the only thing that had changed was the director. He directed four episodes, all of them in season one, and they were the best thing about that season. Even before ep8 I had picked his episodes as the better ones, and to have the improvement confirmed (by the ever-trustworthy internet) as the work of a single person was incredibly gratifying.

No matter how good the rest of it is, though, the writing is still awful. There are episodes with legitimate drama and character development that are killed by the dialogue, and moments of dialogue that are rhythmic and witty but are killed by the delivery and context.

The main selling point of the show is the sex, but upon even a cursory glance the sex is a cheap gimmick. It’s filler (so to speak), and the writers keep returning to it in a blatant attempt to keep audience attention, completely disregarding the fact that boobs are endlessly interesting, but boobs on television get old quick.

Kind of like this whole show.

Maybe it got better after the first season, but the first season is all a show has to sell me on, and that certainly wasn’t up to par.

Bottom line: Follow Adam Smith, Mike Bailey, and Hannah Murray. Nothing else about the show is worth more than a mocking quip.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Totally Unrelated Comic

I know! I'll get back to reviews in a bit, but I rather enjoy making these "I Can't Draw For Shit" comics, and this is my blog-thing, so I make the rules.

Nyuh.

Based on an actual occurrence today, and thanks to Zack for the punchline.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

'Nother Quickie

No reviews today. I plan to work a little on Skins today after I wake up.

For now, here's a little something I drew in the middle of the night:













Enjoy!

Monday, November 29, 2010

Quickie

Sorry I haven't written for awhile, kids. I've been working on this.

I promise, promise, once the store gets up and running I'll finish the script for Skins and post it here, mostly because I don't remember enough to make decent images. The script is possible only through extensive use of my notes.

In the meantime, check this guy out. Go on.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Articles of Quality

Okay, first of all, go read this. Seriously, go. This whole post is centered on that article, it's not that long, so I'll wait.

You done? Good.

I have some basic complaints about this article (aside from the pretentiously proprietary, "Hey that's my thing"). First of all, it's terribly written, with a thesis statement that isn't supported by the body of the article. Secondly, if LOST is the only example of deep, thought-provoking television that the author could come up with, perhaps she's not anything close the the authority she writes like she is. I mean, what about Studio 60? Babylon 5? Soap?

Deeper than that, though:
Sure, there are some astounding clunkers, but television is getting better and better. Writing is more compelling, better actors are becoming attached to televised projects.
What? Tell me, do you watch anything that's actually on, or do you only Netflix dead shows? Writing is not getting better in television. It's exactly the same as in any other medium: Primarily competent but bland with a few sparkling gems that stand out from the mire. And since Aaron Sorkin has departed from television for awhile with no return in sight, JMS is doing Superman (correct me if I'm wrong on that one), Joss Whedon's busy with the Avengers and Cap,  Andrew Marlowe's doing Castle (one of the aforementioned gems), and... no other great TV writers spring to mind.

Which means that we're left with Glee and (shudder) CSI.

What about that "better actors" comment?

Anyone who doesn't know who Richard Mulligan is should be ashamed of themselves. And from the same show, Robert Guillaume. From other great shows: Andreas Katsulos, Peter Jurasik, Alan Tudyk, Ed Wasser, Jewel Staite, Katheryn Helmond, Bradley Whitford, Matthew Perry (I'm forgiving him for Friends), Timothy Busfield, Thomas Gibson, Stana Katic, Emily Proctor (I don't forgive her for CSI: Miami, though), Richard Schiff, Dule Hill, Kathryn Joosten, Paul Gross, Nathan Fillion, Kelsey Grammer, Neil Patrick Harris, John Larroquette, John Lithgow, French Stewart, Robert Carlyle, Michael C. Hall. I'm sure there are more that I missed, but I think my point has been made.

The acting is as good now as it ever has been, the writing is the same. The trick is that most of everything is crap. Sturgeon's Law. It's not that the television is getting better, it's that there's so much more of it that it's easier to find the good stuff.

Television won't just "get better." Sorry, but it won't. As with any other medium, it's only as good as the people in it, and the people who pay attention to it. I can agree that television has been sidelined as an entertainment medium. I can't agree with... anything else in that article.

How will TV get better? Simple. We need to have higher expectations. There should be no "good enough," no "well, it's only a sitcom," no acceptance of the mediocre.

It can be better. But it always starts with the audience, and that, kids, is you.

-Gets off soapbox-

Monday, November 15, 2010

From the Audience

The entire time I was watching the video the two contrasting thoughts of "This is like reading the comments on the internet" and "And what exactly makes you better than the people who works their asses off on BN" crossed my mind alot.
--Dude Man
Fair point. In fact, I'm actually shocked that I didn't get this sooner. Now, it wasn't phrased as a question, more as an accusation, but I'm going to assume that this guy has the balls to ask me to my virtual face and just missed all of my contact information.

Short version? I worked for a few weeks shy of a decade in theatre. Not just any theatre; live theatre. I know, I know, live theatre, and television shows are very different, blah blah blah.

Shut up, because actually, they are very similar, but I'll get to that in a moment.

Long version: I mostly worked in technical, which means that I designed and built sets, I painted, I worked make-up and effects, I hung lights and did some basic sound engineering. It also means that I saw a lot of shows. I got to see what playing the same character night after night does to the performance, I saw what it does to the actors. I learned to differentiate between the acting and the directing and the producing. I know what jobs belong to which people.

I also did some acting (I'm not saying that I was ever good), so I know what it's like to form a character (knowledge bolstered by my years and years of playing D&D) I know how direction gets adapted by the actor, and I can totally sympathise with playing that same character night after night after night.

Also, I went to college for theatre. When I went to college. You know, before I moved half-way across the country and opened a gaming store. So I know things like color theory. I can date molding and wallpaper by the patterns. I can design and create costumes. I can light a set, I can run live-mics for a cast of forty by myself (but those were dark times). I can build a rig for pretty much anything. I'm aware of budget constraints, and what tends to get cut first. I know how to write a script, and I can identify script-writing techniques, as well as more general literary techniques like foreshadowing and symbolism (thanks primarily to the greatest English teacher evar: Mrs. K).

So, how are live theatre and television similar? Well, for a start theres the run. For a movie there's a set amount of material that needs to be acted, teched, and filmed, and that's it. For a television show, there's not only considerably more material, but everything about the show needs to be sustainable. It needs to be reused; everything from the characters to the sets to the lighting models to the rigs cannot be one-time-use, or even until-we-get-the-shot-use. In theatre, while the show stays the same, it does happen over, and over, and over. Some shows run longer than others, but I've worked everything from six-show community theatres to thirty-show tours, and the stress and the deadlines and the weariness from doing the same thing grates on a person. Similarly, there's the stress of doing the same thing.... but different. Adapting to different venues is a bitch and a half. In short, the amount of change that's expected and allowed is almost identical between live theatre and televison, and the same techniques for most everything to do with the production translate easily from one to another (the exception is acting. Watch the pilot for Babylon 5 and understand what I mean what I say, "You're used to a stage, get used to a soundstage for the love of all that's holy!").

My greatest strength has always been tech (which I'm simplistically defining here as "everything that's not the acting or actors"), and my reviews reflect that. I get sidetracked by things like lighting and sets because that's what I'm familiar with. That's what I'm most comfortable judging.

And that, kids, is what qualifies me to pick on television shows. Well, that and I really, really like them and would like to see them improve as an artistic and expressive medium.

Friday, November 12, 2010

Feeding the Trolls

First of all, to those that care, I did not do well in the video contest. Three contracts were given out, none of them were to me, and I was granted the consolation prize of an Honorable Mention... me and thirteen other videos.

Yeah, I'm disappointed, but no more than I am when a video doesn't do well. I'm also disappointed that I won't be able to redo the video like I'd wanted with more time, and more breathing.

Here's what really upset me, though:

God, I'm so glad this didnt get picked up. Shes trying so hard to be ZP by deliberately nitpicking apart a wildly popular show. YOUR personality seems bland and uninspired. So please, whatever your name is. DO NOT I repeat, DO NOT QUIT YOUR DAY JOB. But you probably suck at that too.
--ToonLink 

Yeah. I got another troll.

I kind of love trolls in that yo-yo-ey way of being simply delighted that they've offered themselves for the stomping, but utterly crushed that they're simple enough to try to get a rise out of me.

Oh well, these days I must take my fun where I can find it.

I'll post my reply to him at the bottom, and you're welcome to check out the thread and see for yourselves, but right now I'm not going to go into the conversation and battle o' wits (such as it was). I'm more interested in the idea of trolling.

I mean, really? What the fuck?

When did basic manners become optional? Why do people go out of their way to malign the characters of people they don't know? I mean, I run my  mouth off on the internet all the time, but I try to stay polite. Even when I'm being mean I'm generally polite.

That basic conversational skill, the ability to say what you mean with manners and a smile, is increasingly rare these days, and I have to say, I miss it. You can say that it's two-faced. You can tell me that "being real" is more important. But we're all secretly delighted when someone puts someone else in their place with grace and charm. How about this exchange:

"It's not as good [a party] as last year."
"Yeah? What'd they have last year?"
"Standards."
 Shindig, Firefly
Bitchy right? But still, we laughed at that line even as we winced at Kaylee's discomfort, sympathizing with that feeling of being out of our depth. And we laughed even harder at the follow-up line, which did the same thing, but not to a protagonist:

"It must have taken a dozen slaves a dozen days to get you into that dress. Though from what your daddy tells me, it takes the space of a schoolboy's wink  to get you out of it."

I mean, burn. And here we mark the line between "nice" and "polite." Neither of those examples were in any way rude. They refer only obliquely to the issues at hand, but at the same time, allow both parties to keep face (if they choose) while drawing that "Don't Fuck With Me," line pretty clearly in the sand.

This is a lost art. It's easy to pick out in media, but how often does it happen in real life? Well, almost never. The art of conversation is pretty far into its decline, and the art of banter has followed in lockstep.

Which means that when people (especially people with the anonymity buffer of the internet) encounter something they don't like, they have only the skills to express their discontent in the most crass and yet banal of terms. In other words, they get mean and rude instead of one or the other.

I really don't know why this started. I could blame any of a dozen things, but any of them would be a cheap shot. I do know why it continues, though: We let it. We allow ourselves to insulate ourselves with that layer of pixels and data, never interacting with the people we speak to. We don't let ourselves view them as people. And if they're not people, they're expendable. They're just a name and an opinion on the other side of the internet, so we don't have to be polite to them.

I'm not going to pass judgment on that idea; I think you know pretty well where my opinions lie on the matter.

I would, however, like to pose a question. You don't have to answer me, but think about it.

Who is it "okay" for you to be rude to? Why?

I was okay with the negative comments. I put up with the comparisons. I waded through the shallowness and mire that is the general public to put something I cared about up for inspection by the unpleasable peanut gallery. Well and good, but now, dude, you've crossed the line. 
You can insult me, you can insult my critiques, fine. When you ascribe to me petty motivations, and a general ineptitude, though, I take some offense. 
As for my day job? I own a gaming store. I balance the professional and the geeky and handle people and companies regularly. I manage hard feelings and embarrassment, the shy, the outcast, and the forlorn. I run a nexus of asocial people at an intrinsically social activity. THAT is what I do with most of my time, and I wouldn't stop for the world. 
I make these videos in my spare time. I make them. I put my heart and my time and my skills into something that I actually care about. I didn't make this video for the contest. I didn't do it for the contract. I did it to express an opinion, to lend some credence to the idea that what is popular is not always good, and that a good concept does not good entertainment make. I did it because television is something that gets sidelined in terms of quality and effort, and I object to that. 
My name is Sharon. I'm the Opinionated Critic.
Tell me, who are you?
Happy watching, ya'll.