Of all the big plays of the moment, no play does a better homage to the spirit of the tale than Network-currently starring Bryan Cranston.  It’s a perfect American story-created in England.

The surrounding immersive media is just the beginning.  The line “I’m Mad as Hell” is presented perfectly the first time, and then highlighted as a regular battle cry-you wonder if this is made from a movie from the 1970’s (it was) or if it was written tomorrow.

It takes too much of the insanity of the media-centric world to too many logical conclusions. It plays with your mind over and over, as if media is just an extended magic trick-constantly diverting your attention. For this play, it’s worth it to pay attention.

So a few days ago, the latest episode of Through a Black Mirror Darkly dropped on Netflix and allowed America to play with their own dark mirror devices. And really, why was this so hard to program for regular TVs? Well, the short answer is that this technology is just beyond the scope of today’s remote controls (at least, well, probably).

The big question here is WHY DID IT TAKE SO FRIGGIN LONG?!?!? Hasn’t this kind of technology basically been around for a while?

The idea of branching narrative is not new, but the ways it has been carried out have been in constant development.  Choose Your Own Adventure Books are within recent memory of most adults of showrunner age. To argue devil’s advocate for a bit, new types of storytelling are not always eagerly embraced. For instance, back in 1998 Mike Nesmith created an interactive online novel-and then released it later in a traditional format. Frankly, he also *started* the music videos, i.e. MTV, so he gets legit credit for being a pioneer. There is also Twine (Anyone here heard of it?—Heck is anyone here creating their own Twines?)  But other than the basic risk factors, why hasn’t this been tried before? Video games, VR/AR/MR have been around and have not quite managed to make it into the mainstream-as far as those who hold the publishing purse-strings are concerned.

Yeah, okay, it might involve exponentially more complex shots, time and narrative variations  not to mention creative brainpower, make it more expensive to shoot-but Netflix brought in another level to increase the UX for the viewer/participant/”Controller”.  Not only do we get to control the main character’s choices (plot point!) The program is ALSO watching us. It is recording our choices-to make sure that viewers spend as much time within the experience-even after reaching one of the endpoints, the show directs you back to another decision point.

Quoting the creators from the Hollywood Reporter Interview: “We don’t really want people to exit and start playing again,” says Jones of how to play, since the state tracking lets the character learn as he goes through the different branches. “Every time you get to an end, you can exit and restart from the beginning, or you can keep going and then we’ll give you shortcuts to bits that we know you haven’t done yet,” Brooker adds. “Eventually, there is a point that you will arrive at just credits. But that means you’ve seen almost everything.”

Reddit has gone crazy and within a day mapped out all the endings. There are about 5 discrete endings-although way more in terms of variations and even some paths that are practically impossible to reach.

Another meta-aspect to Bandersnatch story, the legendary Jerome F. Davies is infamous for cutting off his wife’s head while writing the “original” book the game is based on. And perhaps not so coincidentally, Hereditary “dropped” on Amazon Prime the same day.  Don’t lose your head trying to keep up with all the end of year insanity.  Just enjoy.

 

 

A recent daily hashtag (Nov 15) has started an interesting examination on the ideas of how to end a TV show.  Jumping the shark is generally the first indication that a good show has gone bad. And then there is a way to end the show before it even begins (as in  “why bother”?) Since Homer has become a Recapper, everyone can get into the act of grading a show.

Especially with all the recent hubbub about Finales and “Fall Finales” (i.e. False Finales) there is still the sense in TV-creator-land that “lessons learned” is the way to end the arc, and that a “good show” is about an arc. And why it was so great when the Sopranos ended on a blackout. Analyze this, indeed. What about all those shows that simply stopped bc they weren’t renewed and weren’t prepared?

Even more interesting to see the theme picked up, as if it were a serious discussion about which shows needing an end or how they should end. However, this article gives the game more credit than it deserves. Shows end, often with little to no input from viewers (or Recappers). 

Granted, there were lots of cries for the ending of the current Star Trek, and for the end of the current Trump reality show (e.g. The Flawed Squad/Resignfeld).  I don’t know that “Saturday Night Died” counts as a call to end the action.

Twitter doesn’t care about arc, or depth, just brevity. Cut to the chase, so to speak.  The pun here is in the absurdity or the surprisingly obvious option.

Diff’rent Stroke

Mary Tyler Less

There’s No Raven

Charles is Charged

I Loved Lucy

Drugrats

Dewitched

Sabrina, The Fully Trained and Responsible Witch

This exercise is not about suggesting plot points or jumping the shark.  The sensibilities have changed from satisfactory endings to shows ending before they even began. The best part is that shows that have been off the air for decades are still a new part of the national conversation.

 

 

 

 

Other than the distribution channels, what are the REAL distinctions between Film, TV and on line media?  Other than economics, prestige and tradition, there is no difference.

For instance, if you are a writer with a brilliant script, you want to maximize the exposure and influence of your work.  If you are approached by producers of various media, you’d hope to get to the “top of the food chain”.

Naturally, you’d choose a Film contract-assuming that the budget would be high, as it always is-each film requiring a unique production crew, sets, even a unique accountant.  Plus, you’d hope, that each scene would have intense focus and blood, sweat and tears poured into each shot for ultimately 90 minutes of story.

TV has scales of efficiencies, presumably a production company already in place, cranking out “Made for TV Movies”, or better yet-they’d allow your idea to grow and breathe, beyond the scope of 90 minutes. Maybe a miniseries?

Online media (i.e. Youtube, or ANY other video that exists online) can run the gamut to DIY or on-demand Amazon/Netflix studios.  Then it is a matter of how eager you are to get your idea committed to a screen and how much prestige/packaging you are willing to hold out for (gamble on?)

This post was sparked in part by the passing of William Goldman, a true Renaissance man (back when that was nontraditional).  He wrote books and screenplays that got made into movies that were seen in theaters (in/by droves of viewers) and the echoes of his influence are still seen on broadcast tv/cable regularly. For most viewers today, they’d be more likely to run into his work by accident, in the stream of movies (presented uncurated) on most cable stations.  “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” seen as a western, or a comedy, or the namesake of the film institute. Or maybe, some of his work might be seen in a classroom (“All the President’s Men”) or called out as a recommendation/on demand (“Princess Bride”).  If you were not around for the initial impact, his works are still reverberating around to feel like part of the immediate past.

To expand the multimedia perspective, here is a radio salute to him and his movies. Note that even radio has evolved into Podcasting, something distinct from its broadcast self, yet still underscored by its original form.  The New Yorker (i.e. a MAGAZINE-yet ALSO a podcast) explored the nature of how podcasting became seductive audio narration. NPR was known for straight news, then This American Life came on the scene, and had the controversial storytelling bumps in the road (circa 2012), but eventually spawned Serial and STown. Which circles us back to our writer and the choices to be made.

To quote from the NYer article:

“In Hollywood, there is considerable interest in podcasting as a relatively inexpensive means of developing an idea. Whereas it can cost five million dollars to make a TV pilot, an eight- or ten-episode podcast series can be made for five hundred thousand dollars. If the podcast becomes a hit, a TV or film producer will feel greater confidence in the story’s broad appeal—and will have a built-in audience for the adaptation. So far, only a few podcast-to-screen projects have been brought to fruition, and the results have been mixed. Last year, Gimlet’s clever “Startup” podcast became “Alex, Inc.,” a feeble ABC sitcom, starring Zach Braff, that was cancelled after two months. But another Gimlet podcast, the scripted thriller “Homecoming,” has just been adapted into an Amazon series, starring Julia Roberts, and it is receiving strong reviews.”

Podcasts are now comfortable doing storytelling takes on True Crime, unhindered by their origins in journalism, but yet not falling into the territory of Old Time Radio Drama circa 1930’s to 1950’s.  Even original scripts recorded by modern voices have an eerie naivety, as if the emotions exist unchecked; audiences of today KNOW not to open the creaky door in the haunted house, and if they have, they have carefully considered the ramifications of appropriating the narratives of the undead. Magazines and newspapers have been categorized as fake news and for those who want to tell stories, there is an audience eager to hear every part of the spectrum.  The audience, like true democracy, will take in everything as opinion, and judge according to their own opinion. Facts being just another element of storytelling, their true relationship to the truth being a matter up for grabs.

One of the ONLY areas that has not successfully managed to make a transition into modern media is Theater.  Broadway in particular.  It’s just another source of content, but a troubling one at that.  Too close for comfort as a medium for storytelling, it cannot scale, it doesn’t transfer to film directly-and even then, not particularly well. Elitist in terms of time and space, you have to move your body to accommodate the timing of the viewing, rather than the other way around. And at several hundred dollars a pop, economics make it even LESS feasible. Broadway chooses shows that will have a broad appeal, and even then, deep pockets & patience are required for the birthing process. Hamilton grew out of The Public Theater (and the deep pockets of investors), but the Drama Bookshop which gave shelter and comfort to the playwright is no more. And where are the OTHER musicals that are supposed to follow in its wake?

So now we have: screen media, audio media and in person media. The distinction between film/tv/video or radio/podcast are quickly becoming a thing of the past. Theater has been dying for forever, but still hasn’t changed form-nor has it needed to. It just keeps going as a primal force, individualized and all the more precious for its fleeting moments.

 

 

 

Nun’s Story (1959) with Audrey Hepburn

The first half of this movie is a nod to the origins of S&M,  by way of learning utter submission. Beyond anything that 50 shades of grey could imagine-there is this particular shade of white.  Nuns (young women in particular) are taught not to care about anything about themselves. Men become priests (even to this day), can exist in the larger community, are allowed the sins of pride and remembering their earlier lives. The first half of the movie is focused on how Audrey Hepburn’s character should not even TALK, even though she is deeply skilled in medicine, trained by her famous surgeon father, growing up “looking into microscopes”.

Sister Luke wants to go to the Congo (this is the 1930’s), where the white savior complex is heavy. Of course, it is not decided in her favor and she has to serve at a mental institution-where she is attacked by the very psychotic she wishes to “save”. This person believes herself to be the Archangel Gabriel, and is the film debut of Colleen Dewhurst (aka Marilla in Anne of Green Gables (1985), her LAST movie-and the ONLY version worth watching) She gets to go to the Congo after all.

There is a scene about a native African man who enters the hospital and kills one of the nuns, because of a “witch doctor”.  Later another explains, “killing a white woman will rid him of his dead wife’s ghost”. Now THAT is a story I want to hear more of! (The nun had essentially died to the world when she entered the convent) Somebody PLEASE make the version where we see the desperation of a man who is haunted and has to kill a white woman (woman in white?) to stop his own ghosts.  Layer upon layer of symbolism and culture clash there.

She is not a person who “wishes or desires”, this is almost the opposite of a manic pixie dream girl, contrast THIS role with the caricatures of Holly Golightly. MPDGirls are tagged as such for being created out of thin air, created only to serve the character development of the leading man. The opposite happens here. In this movie and real life, nuns WERE forcibly stripped of their reasons for existing and caught up in the world in which their pasts and dreams were erased to serve the “Church” in virtual anonymity, to forward the development (conquest?) of the Catholic Church.  Lots of sins to pay for, of special note, one in which the nuns offer “treatment” to the mentally ill by forcing them into coffins filled with hot/cold water. The screams and the sound of their feet kicking in protest is a certain level of Dante’s Hell that the nuns were forced to inhabit.  Making the suffering people suffer MORE, all in the name of an unseen/unproven benefit, is an assignment that no human should have to be burdened with. 

Ah, TCM, just when I think you are a channel of dusty top 100 classics, you trick me. Looking at the evening lineup, I was bored.  Yes, Nun’s Story (1959, quite an S&M angle to it, actually) and Streetcar (1951 film, 1947 play) SHOULD be seen. I work with Millennials and none of them understand the “STELLLLLLAA!!” reference, not even by way of Simpsons. And then Marty (1955, 1953 teleplay), undergraduate lessons all. 

But ahhh-the thrill of discovery! I work from home sometimes (yes, I have a real job) and some days you have to call it quits at 3pm and switch on the boob tube, hoping you’ll find a mystery movie from the 1930’s but Torchy Blane is in the primetime slot on Monday this week, so they had to fill time with whatever they could grab. Turning on the TV for a random movie used to be the only option.  Now it’s a bit more of a losing gamble.

Honeymoon Killers (1969) is a great surprise for the afternoon lottery. Low budget, ($150k), no stars, could easily fall into exploitation territory. But it is fascinating. A mashup (before there WERE mashups) of The Producers, Natural Born Killers and Bonnie & Clyde. A couple who goes around pretending to be brother & sister (weird enough, since one of them has a heavy Italian accent and they look nothing alike) keep pulling con jobs on “lonely hearts” women who can be fooled by letters. Murder is not such a big deal, pills & you can dispose of a body on a Greyhound, etc. And for some reason he keeps being surprised that she is jealous when he fools around with the marks. Bad situation all around but fascinating to watch.

Even slight digging on the internet reveals major treasure. Based on a true story! Francois Truffaut’s favorite American film! And the kicker? Some scenes directed by a VERY young Scorsese, almost his second film, except he was fired for working too slowly!

Check out the link below for a good summary & context. The Criterion and IMDB link set it up as if the girlfriend role is entirely motivated by desperation and jealousy, instead of it taking two to tango.  The actress, Shirley Stoler, does an incredible job of being cruel, jealous, vulnerable and sexy all in turn. And look for my favorite moment, worthy of film noir and created from a cheap budget, where the camera focuses on the eyes of a victim, in the last few moments before death-sound effects used to radio-drama level perfection. (I’d like to point to that moment as a leftover of Scorsese’s, but the only scenes he filmed were of a train)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Honeymoon_Killers

So, the legendary operatic diva Maria Callas is back from the grave.

Not as a zombie-that would be a great idea, btw, still up for grabs.

No, there is a new LIVE-IN-PERSON-HOLOGRAM performance series happening, still in previews (or as we might call it, early Usability Testing), with audiences.

It comes out of a company called Base Hologram, which also is capturing a different fan-of-the-dead demographic, those who adore the work of Roy Orbison (see Baby Boomers, those who became musically aware of coolness of Buddy Holly & Day the Music Died era, pre-Beatles but not exclusive to the Fab Four). Info on the production and tickets can be found here: Maria Callas Hologram.

The reviews starting to come out prove that this is a particularly finicky fan base. An NPR reviewer, who admits to being moved to tears, finds himself tossing between the entire CONCEPT of the illusion of theater & suspension of disbelief. Bringing in the “fake news” and manipulation of media as a topic, he approaches the evening as a willing auditor and yet holds cynicism in the back of his mind, like someone afraid to be taken in by a carny:

“As the “performance” progressed, I gradually became immune to the production’s obvious absurdities and technical deficiencies, inching toward belief. Research shows that if people are told the sky is green often enough, a few will begin to believe it.”

He then surveys the audience members immediately around him and gets a positive response. Quoted impressions (from persona breakdowns) include:

SuperFans:

• “I felt like I was in the presence of a truly great opera performer/That was the treat for me. I will never get to see her perform, but I felt like I did.”
•  “It exceeded my wildest expectations,” he said, beaming. (He owns every note Callas recorded.)

Their Plus Ones/Dates (i.e. their Wives)

• “her personality shone through.” (she’d never heard a Callas recording but was impressed)
• More skeptical (although she enjoyed it)

Read/hear the full NPR review, above quotes taken from this source : “Raising the Dead…And a Few Questions”

Opera is a form dedicated to impossible standards and the tiniest of subtleties. Fans have been known to get into knock-down, drag out fights over the perceived memory of competing recordings. Add to this complication, the age of the base here-the average age of each audience would make AARP happy, This is NOT a group which has traditionally been comfortable with technology (although this might be an interesting wedge to this argument). They have essentially not grown up with the style of video game visuals or the hiccups inherent to technology.

The next upcoming productions will involve Amy Winehouse. And (separately) dinosaurs. It will be interesting to see how these performances play with younger audiences who would arrive at a venue with different expectations. Amy Winehouse was just beginning her career, and unlike the other members of the “27 club” like Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin, is seen as a near-contemporary by concert going audiences. The topic of touring dinosaurs might bring the Jurassic Park/King Kong/Barnum & Bailey’s circus atmosphere.  The world has yet to SEE how dinosaurs play onstage, so in terms of expectations, anything goes.

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton