viva las ... blackpool?
October 25, 2005
Based, to be sure, on only one episode so far, I will take a chance and say that BBC America's Viva Blackpool is the most oddly undemented thing I've ever seen. Think "The Sopranos" as channelled through the original "Pennies from Heaven", and you'd have something of the sense of it, except that the musical numbers are much more grounded in reality, if that's quite the right word, than anything from Dennis Potter's Pennies from Heaven or The Singing Detective. series. There's absolutely no sense that anyone's hallucinating, and their hallucinations just happen to take the form of musical numbers. It's like they figured out how to do what Cop Rock got wrong, and make a musical kind of fit within the structure of a mystery/thriller/family drama thing. Buffy the Vampire Slayer's "Once More With Feeling" -- where the characters had no choice but to sing, due to magical goings-on -- comes closest to catching the feeling of Viva Blackpool, but with a great deal less music than the Buffy episode -- and with no original music whatsoever.
Maybe it's that we're somewhat more used to demented television, musicals or otherwise, by now, so anything less than that doesn't quite strike us as strange any more. It helps that the music isn't original -- the songs are all retreads of well known songs, if somewhat unexpectedly staged. There's an interesting structural trick; we can clearly hear the original version -- Elvis singing "Viva Las Vegas", for example, but we also sometimes hear the characters singing along with the song (and having been pelted to death with "Viva Las Vegas" in the ads, plus getting it twice in the first episode, I would dearly love never to hear it again). The other interesting thing is that the songs actually work in context almost as well as they would if composed for the situation. In general, the purpose of songs in a musical is to come out of moments where emotions are so strongly felt that all the characters can do is sing. Having the characters sing along with the known recording, as though they were listening to a radio or some such, somewhat subverts that premise. The characters still feel, but it's more that they're hearing a song that expresses what they're going through at the moment and singing (and dancing) along, rather than having the music bubble up originally from inside them, so to speak. (That said ... David Tennant, as police inspector Peter Carlisle, and David Morrissey's Ripley Holden having a singing duel with Nancy Sinatra's "These boots were made for walking" is utterly, absolutely, priceless and pretty much worth the price of subscription all by itself. And next week, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles' "I second that emotion" occurs in what appear to be somewhat interesting circumstances.)
It'll be interesting to see how they make the viewer care about Ripley Holden (David Morrissey) and his family. Ripley Holden is a truly, sincerly not-very-nice person ... but he also clearly cares very much about his family.
The feel of Viva Blackpool is more like Atlantic City -- a story taking place in a seedy, somewhat run-down gambling resort town.
One thing to note: between the really impressively salty language, and the distinctly adult situations (we get to watch Ripley fantasizing about another woman -- or three -- while making love to his wife, and singing along to Elvis' "She's Not You" ... and his wife also demonstrates her impressive limberness for no apparent reason), and, oh yes, the murder in the first episode (and we get to see some lovely pictures of the extremely dead victim over and over), this isn't necessarily what you'd call "family-friendly fare." One can imagine some parents out there thinking, "Oh, look, a musical! With Elvis songs! Perfect for the kinder!" Um ... no. Really, not something for children to watch.
Posted by iain at 01:14 AM
demagogue's safety act of 2005
October 14, 2005
Hollywood lobbyists are warning federal lawmakers that proposed anti-child pornography legislation could prove so onerous for studios that they may be forced to keep detailed records about actors appearing in virtually any lovemaking scene, even for movies rated PG-13.
A little-noticed rider from Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) to the Children's Safety Act of 2005 passed by the House would require producers of material containing actual or simulated sexual conduct to keep records of the names, ages and proof of identification of the actors shown in the productions. They also would have to make the information available to law enforcement officials upon request. Lobbyists argue that the measure's sweeping language goes beyond the intended target — pornography — and encompasses more tame fare. "We are extremely concerned that this measure is overly broad and violates the constitutional protections of free speech," said Erik V. Huey, a Washington lawyer for the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. "Mainstream film and television productions are being lumped in the same category as hard-core pornography."
Interesting.
For some reason -- perhaps because it's politic to do so -- mainstream film and television producers are concerned that they're being unintentionally included in this act. At least, that's what they're saying. Given the fuss that was made at the time this act was drafted -- and there was a certain amount of press at the time -- that the language was too expansive, it's clear that, to the extent that the act discusses any sort of sexual depictions, mainstream Hollywood isn't the unintended target; they're the principal target.
WASHINGTON -- Tucked deep inside a massive bill designed to track sex offenders and prevent children from being victimized by sex crimes is language that could put many Hollywood movies in the same category as hard-core, X-rated films. The provision added to the Children's Safety Act of 2005 would require any film, TV show or digital image that contains a sex scene to come under the same government filing requirements that adult films must meet.
Currently, any filmed sexual activity requires an affidavit that lists the names and ages of the actors who engage in the act. The film is required to have a video label that claims compliance with the law and lists where the custodian of the records can be found. The record-keeping requirement is known as Section 2257, for its citation in federal law. Violators could spend five years in jail. Under the provision inserted into the Children's Safety Act, the definition of sexual activity is expanded to include simulated sex acts like those that appear in many movies and TV shows. [...] Industry officials contend that the way the provision is written, a sex scene could trigger the provision even if the actors were clothed. While the language is designed to capture "lascivious exhibition of the genitals," other legal decisions have said that "lascivious exhibition" could occur when the genitals are covered. The bill, with the Section 2257 provision included, already has been approved by the U.S. House of Representatives and is waiting consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Industry executives worry that the provision, which is retroactive to 1995, will have a chilling effect on filmmakers. Faced with the choice of filing a 2257 certificate or editing out a scene, a filmmaker might decide it's not worth getting entangled with the federal government and let the scene fall to the cutting-room floor, the executives said....
And THAT is almost certainly the real reason for the expansion of the act. The House is trying to target mainstream television and film by lumping all sexual depictions into the same category. The government is trying to create the chilling effect. The bluenoses in the House feel that there's too much sex on telly, therefore they will produce a regulation that is so burdensome to the studios, and produces such unpleasant associations, that they decide to tone down the content. If Congress is successful in this attempt, they'll shove television and film back to those halcyon days of Beaver Cleaver, when Mom and Dad slept in twin beds, only kissed on the cheek, were virtuously married and nobody had any sex anywhere ever because babies came from the stork.
The reason that it looks like the target is mainstream Hollywood and not porn producers? First, most commercial porn producers already keep the sorts of records that this act requires. There will be a bit of additional paperwork, but onl the whole, for most porn producers, this is just going to be a major nuisance more than anything else.
And then there's this, from that same Hollywood Reporter article:
...In 1988, a similar provision was ruled unconstitutional by the federal court here. Congress later rewrote it so that it included only actual sex acts, not the pretend acts in movies and TV shows....
Similar language has already been ruled overbroad in similar laws. Congress has to know that this will be struck down. Yet they keep trying, because it makes them look Tough on Porn! Tough on Crime! and that plays at election time.
This law will, of course, pass. And it will, of course, be appealed. And it is very likely that the law will be struck down as it applies to nonpornographic works.
But still, wouldn't it be nice if we could get legislators mature enough to avoid this kind of stupidity?
Posted by iain at 02:33 PM
why? why? why? ... no, really, WHY?
October 13, 2005
Seriously, WHY? After all this time has passed? And ... well, this?
ARLINGTON, Mass. -- The infamous clubbing that ice skater Nancy Kerrigan took on the knee is now set to music. Arlington author Elizabeth Searle has co-written "Nancy and Tonya: The Opera," which is scheduled to be performed this spring at Tufts University.
Kerrigan was whacked by an associate of rival Tonya Harding during the Olympic trials prior to the 1994 Winter Olympics. Searle told the Boston Herald that people are still fascinated by the incident. The opera opens with Kerrigan and Harding giving dueling press conferences at the Olympics. And the aria is built around Kerrigan's famous cry of "Why? Why? Why?" after she was hit.
An aria.
In the dulcet tones of Nancy Kerrigan's shocked, horrified and weeping voice.
Yes. Well. Quite.
I suppose you could put it on as an operatic two-fer with "Jerry Springer: The Opera". It would certainly make for an evening out.
I wonder how far the opera goes. After all, Kerrigan and Harding have had what might politely be called wildly divergent careers since the infamous incident; the difference alone would be the stuff of tragedy, in some ways. In many ways, they're both effectively out of skating, Kerrigan by her own choice, and Harding because nobody would touch her.
Posted by iain at 01:48 PM
hello, darkness...
October 12, 2005
My, my. The New York Times doing its second substantive article about comic books in a year. Whoda thunk it?
By GEORGE GENE GUSTINES
Published: October 12, 2005
If there was ever a job for Superman, this is it.
DC Comics is in the midst of a major effort to revitalize the company's fabled superheroes for the 21st century and better connect with today's readers. The undertaking, which began in 2002, has involved a critical look at DC's characters - from Aquaman and Batman to Zatanna - and developing story lines that sometimes have heroes engage in decidedly unheroic deeds. [...] Toward the end of "Infinite Crisis," the characters will be catapulted a year into the future, some emerging with significantly new outlooks. To explain their transformation, next May DC will begin publishing "52," a yearlong weekly series set in "real" time chronicling the gap in the heroes' lives. By the end of the process, DC hopes to have recreated a universe of superheroes more in keeping with the times.
"Our audience is much smarter, much more sophisticated, and not necessarily because it's older," said Greg Rucka, a writer working on DC's plan. "A 12-year-old 20 years ago and a 12-year-old today are reading at very different levels. That's just the way it is." He added: "Everything has to evolve."
[...] DC's move to remake its superheroes has led to bold decisions:
¶Last year, the "Identity Crisis" mini-series, written by Brad Meltzer, a novelist, had the Justice League retaliating for the rape of a hero's wife by brainwashing the villain - a turn of events that drove some fans to the Internet to vent their concern over DC's direction. The series was one of the year's best-selling titles.
¶This past year, tension among Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman, the pillars of the DC universe, has been running high and erupted in July when Wonder Woman resorted to killing a man to save the Man of Steel.
¶The one-year gap that results from the "Infinite Crisis" will allow a hard look at every DC title with the question "What works about this character for the 21st century?" Mr. Waid said. Some titles may end up being canceled. Others will get a change of editors or writers.
¶"52," the weekly series that begins in May, will be a story-telling and production challenge. A weekly series leaves little room for delays in writing, illustrating or printing, and the "real time" concept means no inventory story can be dropped in to fill a gap in the narrative.
The commitment of resources "scared a lot of departments," Mr. DiDio said, adding, "This is not just an editorial risk; it's a company risk."
If fans embrace the new DC superhero universe, the gamble will be worth it. Last year, the comic book industry generated nearly $500 million in sales. Milton Griepp, the publisher and founder of ICv2, an online trade publication that covers popular culture for retailers, estimated that monthly comics accounted for about $290 million of that sum. (The rest came from trade paperbacks.) Industry estimates for August's market share, in dollars, placed DC at 38 percent and Marvel at 41 percent.
What about fans who feel that DC is becoming too dark a place to visit?
Mr. DiDio and Mr. Levitz agreed that there would be opportunities for course correction. If one of the writers feels "we're off track, we'll regroup," Mr. DiDio said.
While some readers have posted complaints on the Internet that superheroes have become entangled in grimmer stories of late, DC creators note that even its most illustrious heroes' tales have dark roots. It was the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents that spawned Batman; the story of Superman began with the destruction of his home planet, Krypton.
"I think people feel it's dark because it's so compelling," Mr. DiDio said. "They don't know how our heroes are going to get out of the danger."
Mr. Rucka agreed: "When they're saying 'it's too dark,' they're saying, 'I'm scared.' "
He added, "It's not a crisis if they know they're going to win."
Hmm...
OK, here's the thing.
When I say that All Star Batman and Robin is too dark, I'm not saying, "Ohmigawd, I'm so scared! I don't know what's going to happen! I don't know if Batman's going to win this battle!" That's not what I mean at all, and it's not what anybody I know means by that.
When I say that All Star Batman and Robin is too dark, what I am in fact saying is: Guys, the thing is just too damn DARK. That Batman is usually -- perhaps frequently -- just the teensiest bit too tightly wound, that he has splinters in the windmills of his mind ... that's a given for the character. That's expected. However ... that Batman would take advantage of an opportunity provided by the senseless public murder of two people to kidnap their child, and to deliberately handle things in a way to connive at keeping the child griefstricken, to deliberately induce the same sort of near-psychosis in the child as he has apparently endured since the at least ten-years-past murder of his own parents ... THAT, I say, is too damn dark. THAT produces a hero with whom I cannot empathize, with whom I cannot sympathize, and with whom I would never EVER want to identify. THAT produces a title that I will abandon after only its second issue because I have no interest or desire to find out what happens next. A more sophisticated approach to storytelling to fit both an older and more sophisticated readership, certainly not a bad idea. An approach that results in characters with only passing resemblances to the comic book heroes that we grew up with, got used to ... perhaps not the best way to handle things. (And handing another Batman title to Miller ... well, it'll probably get them some sales, at least initially. Overall, getting Miller to rewrite the Batman/Robin story ... well.)
And also: If one of the writers feels "we're off track, we'll regroup," Mr. DiDio said. One of the writers. But what if the readership feels you're off track, and starts voting with their wallets, but the writers feel that what they're doing is good work and will ultimately have a good payoff? How do you negotiate that issue? If history is any guide, DC just lets the title collapse; that already seems to be happening with Robin and the other Batman titles, which seem to be having a rather spectacular collision between the writer's desires and the readers' preferences.
Posted by iain at 03:07 PM
police state-r-us: now even text is illegal
October 11, 2005
The FBI and our Department of Injustice have apparently misplaced their copy of the Constitution -- as has much of the rest of this administration.
NOTE: The link in the article below is to a site for adult site webmasters. Only people over the age of 21 should follow that link.
PITTSBURGH, PA - The FBI raided the home of a controversial erotic stories website owner on Friday, apparently on charges of obscenity. The website, red-rose-stories.com, posted a notice on its home page announcing the raid and warning customers that the FBI now has access to all past customer information. "I am sorry to inform all interested parties that Red Rose Stories is a DEAD site," read a statement posted on the website by operator Rosie. "The FBI has suceeded [sic] in closing me down. I am being charged with 'OBSCENITIES' and face charges for having posted such stories. Our stories are NOT protected speech. Please, please, be careful out there." The stories in question, according to the website’s announcements, include no images or videos, but describe acts of bestiality, urination, scat, BDSM, slavery, threesomes, orgies and sex with children.
According to Rosie’s post, the FBI entered her home while she was away and seized several items before leaving. "The men in black (FBI) took ALL of my computer equipment, and many of my diskettes, and have access to ALL my files and site information," Rosie warned on her site. "They came when I was NOT home and siezed [sic] my belongings, I had no choice, and no recourse."
Rosie’s attorney Larry Walters, of Weston, Garrou, DeWitt and Walters, said that the FBI will have a difficult case if the raid was merely over the content of text stories. "We're still investigating the issues associated with the raid, but at this point it does not appear that any basis exists to justify obscenity charges premised on the written stories and audio files that were the subject of the search warrant," Walters told YNOT. "While obscenity laws are broad enough to potentially cover the written word, a conviction based solely on text, or even audio, would be an extreme uphill battle for the government in the current culture. We are hopeful that once the matter is reviewed at the next level, no further action will be taken in regards to the stories at issue." [...]
Normally, no government official would even think of prosecuting for obscenity based on textual content. Given the articles guaranteeing both Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech, it is entirely constitutional to advocate perfectly illegal or abhorrent actions. That's why, for example, the Klan gets to march in Skokie when they feel like getting some attention; it's entirely legal for them to advocate all sorts of horrific things to be done to people they don't like. Similarly, it's entirely legal to write down or verbalize all sorts of legally abhorrent sexual fantasies, as long as you don't necessarily carry them out. (And many of the fantasies included in the stories in the warrant seem to be entirely legal, as long as done between consenting adults of whatever age and numerical combination.)
What the government is hoping, of course, is that the webmaster will simply surrender quickly. After all, this person isn't some porno bigwig, like Larry Flynt; she's just this woman running this website. They're thinking that she can't afford a long case, so she's likely to cop some sort of plea that allows her to stay out of jail, pay some sort of fine, and go on with her life, and they'll get to point and say, "Hey, look, we're tough on porn!" If she can hang on long enough to get this to trial, a judge who applies the Constitution properly ought to dismiss this charge with prejudice, meaning that refiling charges would be considerably more difficult for the FBI
The only other way this case makes the least sense is if the FBI was misinformed as to the nature of the site. If they thought that they were actually going to find child pornography photographs on the site, then the raid would make sense. Of course, that would also require them to have done no preliminary investigation whatsoever. And, in fact, the materials in the warrant in question are, as mentioned in the above article, text and audio. No visual materials were even noted.
If it weren't for the nominal independence of the Department of Injustice from the White House, I'd wonder if they didn't mean this to be a distraction from some sort of indictments that the administration might be expecting. The press may be full of this blatantly unconstitutional action over the next few days -- although the nature of the stories involved might make them hesitate -- and so the indictment of a minor official or 22 might go somewhat less noticed. (Or it could produce a rather interesting pile-on effect. One can but hope.)
I also suspect that they weren't after the site so much as they were after its subscription records. After all, people who subscribe to this site might subscribe to similar sites where illegal materials are maintained, right? If you've read stories about sex with children, then you'll maybe want to see an image or two, maybe want to watch a video ... If they can get this sort of link from her subscriber records -- or, more technically, from examining her subscriber records, getting a wiretap warrant, and monitoring computer activities from those people -- then they can maybe pull in a few other convictions.. (Unless, of course, a judge dismisses this case with prejudice and orders them to return all records and equipment and purge all information from their files. They won't, of course -- law enforcement is notorious for taking their own sweet time in complying with such orders, and there's no hope that they'll purge the information, although they'll say that they have.)
Posted by iain at 01:29 PM