"Законопослушный гражданин"

Американская система правосудия, мягко говоря, не всегда оказывается на высоте. Недавняя история с Поланским еще раз показала, к чему приводит практика заключения сделок с обвиняемыми.

И вот появляется герой (Джеральд Батлер), который решает бороться с этой практикой террористическими методами. Для разогрева он уничтожает пару подонков-убийц, затем начинает убивать беспринципных судей и адвокатов, а на закуску планирует взорвать мэрию...

Вообще, потенциал у фильма был отличный. Но, похоже, продюсеры озаботились, что кино получается слишком камерное, и начали срочно ковать из него боевичок. И капитально изгадили третий акт, который явно переписали в последний момент. В результате ружья, развешанные по стенкам в первых двух актах, срочно убрали, и вместо них в комнату внесли бомбу замедленного действия.

Первый час нам постоянно тычут в физиономию параллель между семьей героя-мстителя и семьей продажного юриста. Мститель то и дело обещает юристу, что он оставляет его напоследок. Ясное дело, он собирается заняться его женой и дочкой. Но нет - в третьем акте мститель ни с того ни с сего переключается на мэрию. Почему не на ООН?

Интересно было бы почитать оригинальный сценарий...

"Суррогаты"

Нет, конечно, Брюс Уиллис с гривой волос неописуемого цвета - это улет. Технически фильм хорошо сделан. Основной просчет - драматургический. Поскольку это все-таки боевик, а не философская драма, то чем дальше, тем герой должен становиться круче. А здесь - наоборот: в середине фильма крутого Брюса-робота уничтожают, и вместо него на сцену выходит слабый Брюс-человек. Соответственно, крутые драки-погони сменяются избиениями, больничными койками и выяснением отношений с женой. А все героические подвиги Брюса сводятся к нажиманию кнопок.

А вот Рада Митчелл неплохо сыграла свою бабу-робота, в которую по очереди вселяются все, кому не лень. Митчелл говорила, что согласилась на роль, потому что ей нужно было заплатить за новый дом - но поработала хорошо, не схалтурила, убедительно изобразила роботоподобную пластику и мимику. Показать нечеловечность трудно. (Эталоном для меня остается Шонда Фарр в I Was Made to Love You. )

"Предложение", "Голая правда"

Я вдруг поняла, что забываю увиденные фильмы практически сразу же после их окончания. В разговоре с друзьями я пыталась вспомнить название какого-то недавнего фильма - но тщетно.
Поэтому решила понемному записывать свои впечатления здесь.

Две недавние комедии - "Предложение" и "Голая правда".

"Предложение" - более-менее симпатичное кино, Сандра Буллок выносит его на своих хрупких плечах. Она все-таки умеет играть комических персонажей с человеческим лицом. Да и сценарист слегка поработал мозгами, прежде чем включить стандартный режим романтической комедии: за типажами проглядывают довольно рельефные характеры. И механизм сближения героев прописан хорошо. И неожиданный обмен героев социальными ролями - тоже приятный сюрприз. Запомнилось ненавязчивое противопоставление феминизма по-столичному (издерганная женщина-начальник, которой приходится быть настоящим бультерьером, чтобы отвоевывать свое место под солнцем в мужском мире) и феминизма по-провинциальному ( местные дамы ходят на мужской стриптиз, который исполняет местный бармен). Не понравилось: откровенная игра в поддавки в конце. Но что поделать - правила жанра.

"Голая правда": всю дорогу хотелось воскликнуть "Джерри, зачем бы снимаешься в подобном? Уж лучше пусть будет еще один слэшерский рай!" При том что Батлер, в общем, себя не уронил. Но именно на фоне нормального, естественно себя ведущего мужика все остальное кажется безумно фальшивым. Ну не верю я, что Кэтрин Хайгл - умный, прожженный продюсер. Тут нужна Кейт Бланшетт, Сельма Блэр или - ну, не знаю, - та же самая Сандра Буллок.
Сделали бы героиню Хайгл телезвездочкой - может быть, и сошло бы. Или все равно было бы плохо. Когда в финале она якобы перестает притворяться глупой блондинкой, и становится самой собой, разницы не видно. Ну никакой. И за что ее полюбил Батлер, совершенно не понятно. Запомнилось: сцена с трусами-вибратором. Планка безвкусицы в мейнстриме поднялась на новый уровень.

So, vampires are regret personified?

I haven't written anything about issue #23 because, frankly, I felt I had nothing to say. The issue was ridiculous setting-wise and plot-wise, it had funny Andrew bits and it inequivocally demonstrated that Joss plans to tease shippers ad infinitum.

I was looking forward to issue 24 with certain trepidation, because recently I grew fond of Faith and I appreciate Richards' art more than Jeanty's. So, at least, I hoped to get a couple of decent Faith panels.

I got them. Richards' Faith is luscious, edgy, sexy and determined. Another plus is that she looks like Faith would look now. Like Eliza Dushku looks in Dollhouse. My favorite panel is the one on the train, where Faith says that the new slayers have the right to choose whether to fight or to live peacefully.

But the the plotting - or, rather, the concept - is more than clumsy. It goes against everything we know about vampires.

So, Faith and Giles meet a slayer who ran away from her squad. She tells them about a slayer sanctuary in Hanselstadt. Giles decides to find the place. They board a train at platform 9-3/4 and arrive in a bucolic town where only old folks live. Turns out there is a demon in residence who feeds on fears and regrets. He eats children and slayers (yes, the "sanctuary" is a trap!) and, as a side-effect, protects the town from vampires.

Because, and an evil ex-Watcher declares, "the vampire is regret personified. A hunger for life that's been damned to never be satisfied." That's why vampires eschew Hanselstadt.

Huh?

Looks like the further into season 8 we go, the more we stray from the tired premise of vampires as pure evil. Now, vampires personify regrets. I'm curious if this new development was a one-issue plot necessity or a new trend.

The issue is more Giles-centric than Faith-centric. Shadowcat67 wrote an in-depth analysis of Giles' character development in this issue so I won't go there. Faith doesn't have much to do here. Of course, she fights the demon and with Giles' help she kills it but she doesn't face any of those controversial moral dilemmas that make Buffyverse so fascinating.

I wonder if the demon is supposed to work as a social commentary on the demographic situation in Europe where many places have negative natality rate, or, as Shadowcat67 thinks, a metaphor of regrets sucking the passion out of our souls. Or both.

Anyway. What bothers me is how uninspiring - to me - this story looks. Issue #24 is a typical MOTW one-shot. It features the characters I love - yet nothing of it lingers in my mind except a couple of beautiful Faith panels. I think I had the same problem with the previous issue - it was OK but there was nothing compelling in it.

I have the impression that this is the biggest problem with season 8. It's doomed to be either sensational or boring. There is no middle ground. To be compelling it has to be controversial. The comics don't grab me unless Buffy turns out to be a lesbian, or an enemy of humanity, or a bank robber. Or she (arguably) destroys the Fray timeline. Or?...

Writers have to up the ante with every issue to make the story compelling. How long could they do it until it fizzles out ot goes out of hand completely?

Angel#17 and speculations

So, after 17 issues, the story is over.

Angel *did* manage to destroy W&H, or, at least, its LA branch. Wesley is gone (*sniffle*), Gunn is in coma, Illyria reconciles with her inability to be a geniune Fred, Lorne is just there on the couple of panels, because he's a regular, Spike and Angel got married , snark like old-married, but ultimately agree they brought up Connor well. Awww...
Angel confronts Burge, whose son he killed in the first issue. Burge's son is alive - as well as Angel's son. Angel's confrontation with Burge ends with a line: "Leave while you can". He lets him live. He has to confront "his inner Burge" so-to-speak, as he visit unconscious Gunn in the hospital. He wants to help him. But would he if Connor was really dead?

The last panel shows Angel walking away to his next adventures in a separate series by Kelly Armstrong. Spike heads to Las-Vegas to his own series by Brian Lynch. We've been promised frequent crossovers.

It was a great ride - dark, controversial and twisted. Sometimes storylines were a bit too complicated. Time-loop device, time-travel plan, universe reload - all these twists within the same story are an overkill. But plot had never been the crucial element in Jossverse4; it was character's journeys that mattered. And Angel's journey to hell and back was gripping and inventive - he shanshued, found his son, lost him and found again. The experience has profoundly changed him - he became more understanding and less ruthless.

For the first time his arc ends with him having family and friends. Connor is there, and Nina, and Spike, and Gwen, and Lorne. Angel is accepted, he gets recognition. Unusual situation. So, what's in store for him? At first sight his story came full circle, back to the first episode, "City Of" in which he arrived to LA to help the helpless. Looks like in "Aftermath" he'll start from square A, with new supporting characters and new storyarcs.

I wonder if the idea of Angel-as-a-celebrity will be fleshed out in "Aftermath". The premise is incredibly interesting. But it seems to me that Lynch saves the concept to himself and he plans to explore it in his upcoming Spike series. I have the impression that in Spike: Shadow Puppets Lynch was zeroing in on the idea to make Spike his alter ego as well as the ultimate camp hero and use him to mock showbiz as much as possible. So far, we know that he is spinning off Spike and Lorne and sending them to Las-Vegas.

At first sight, Spike is a perfect candidate for such a role. Lynch has always been reveling in showbiz references and Spike will be his perfect mouthpiece and alter ego. Spike's transition to the world of showbiz may go pretty smoothly. I'm rereading Cynthea Masson and Marni Stanley's essay Queer Eye of that Vampire Guy: Spike and the Aesthetics of Camp. Some ideas are arguable, but, overall - yes, I agree, that Spike is the character who subverts genre convention. The more outrageous the situation, the more effectively he works as a fool in a royal court. Spike-the-showbiz-slayer is a funny and promising path.

But. There are two "buts". The comic Spike consistently becomes less James Marsters' Spike and more Bryan Lynch's Spike. He loses his sensitive side, he becomes "a man's man". Yes, I realize it's inevitable. Every writer has his own Spike. But on the TV show writers' interpretations were anchored by James' acting. BTW, during a recent Q&As with Lynch I asked him if he met actors who played the characters from the comics and if he tried to incorporate their personal traits into the characters. He didn't reply.

I think that writers get brilliant results when they're inspired by actors personalities - even when they write comics. Fresh example: in 2004 Jane Espenson met Mercedes MacNab during Queen Mary Con, where Mercedes showed off her Chihuahua; in 2008 Espenson used her experience when she wrote Harmony on BtVS s8.

Spike's character mostly depends on the Lynch's take on him. And the way he writes Spike I slowly lose connection to the character. He becomes less sensitive, more "a man's man". I realise that many fans, especially male, prefer that new macho Spike to the one we saw onscreen. But I'm not sure I can relate to that Spike.

Other "but" is connected with crossover prospects. Since on BtVS vampires suddenly became popular and Buffy has serious PR problems, Spike-the-showbiz-slayer is more likely candidate for crossing over to BtVS s8. And I feel very uncomfortable about the possibility of a crossover. I guess people already know about Joss' recent Q&As:

Question: Will we see an actual Buffy/Angel reunion and/or a reaffirmation of their romantic feelings?
Joss Whedon: They're gonna have sex for 3 issues straight. Nothing but porn. Because that's what America needs.
Question: Will Buffy ever know that Spike is alive?
Joss Whedon: Spike will appear in two of the three issues. I can't really describe how.

While Buffy/Angel shippers are already celebrating and looking forward to jealous Spike discovering Buffy and Angel during their epic love-making session I'm pretty sure that Joss was kidding (although after monstrous success of Twilight he couldn't but consider a happy reunion with a high school sweetheart as the only way to achieve mainstream recognition). But, in any case, a crossover seems inevitable - and, knowing Joss, I suspect Spike will play the same role Angel played in EoD/Chosen. He'll give Buffy a shiny bauble (or something else) to help in her fight against evil and the duo will perform a requisite "once we had a chance but we moved on" routine. Color me fastidious - I just don't want to see a generic closure to the most amazing and unusual love story I know.

So... where it leaves Angel? I don't know but I'm curious to find out. I'm not acquainted with Kelly Armstrong's work; I read her interview where she says that "with the events of After the Fall he’s [Angel] finally paid his dues" - a statement that, frankly, baffled me. But I don't want to criticize the comic I haven't read yet, so I'm looking forward to the first issue of Aftermath.