breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)


The results of my (otherwise mostly pointless) labors— an early scene imagining the next-generation Frasier spinoff I was musing about, at ridiculous length, in my entry yesterday. This would be the first scene between the two main characters, cousins Freddy and David Crane, almost twenty years after the end of the previous series.

The challenge of such a show would be twofold. One, to evoke the tone and style of the comedy of Frasier without copying it exactly. And two, to update and modulate for both modern comedic tastes, as well as for significantly younger characters. Even if Freddy is in many ways my Frasier stand-in, he’s thirty-three in the near future, not the eighties like Frasier was, not to mention the fact that Frasier was over forty for most of his show.

I’m tentatively assuming the multi camera setup like Frasier had, and I’d want to use the title cards between scenes. But I’d also want to include allusions to familiar elements of the show non-literally. Like, for example, there could be a physical point of contention between Freddy and David similar to how Frasier hated Martin’s old chair in his apartment, or a similar animal companion issue the way Martin’s dog Eddie was. Maybe something with a call-in element? I don’t know. It could also be fun to have an unseen character that people talk about, like Maris on Frasier or Vera before her on Cheers.

As a side note, I’d probably have to take into account the time skip with the setting. I would probably look to how Parks and Recreation handled it for inspiration, as they incorporated it pretty well. The future-stuff also might be another source for humor.

And NBC, if you’re paying attention: PLEASE BUY THIS FROM ME TO LEGITIMIZE THIS OTHERWISE RIDICULOUS USE OF MY TIME.

Day #14 - The Cousins Crane )
breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)
Rewatching Frasier as my current background noise while I work. It’s my favorite sitcom of its era, such that I still enjoy it even twelve years after it ended. It’s famously one of most successful sitcom spinoffs, possibly the very most, of all time. Now and then as I watch it, ideas about the show occur to me, that fact in particular has made my thoughts drift to possible further stories from there. If you don’t mind a slight spoiler, all of the characters end up with children by the end of it— Frasier already had his son Frederick, Roz had daughter Alice in season 5, and the series finale featured the birth of Niles and Daphne’s son David. Could there possibly be a show in focusing on the next generation of the Cranes?

It would be tough, of course, and not just because spinoffs seem to have a stigma as being pointless coattail-hangers. The biggest problem is the age differences between the cast characters. Freddy was born in 1989, Alice in 1998, and David in 2004, making them in 2016 ages 27, 18, and 12. Those are large enough gaps to make it so they couldn’t really be peers growing up.

So, if I were going to do it, how might I pull it off? The main theme of Frasier’s presence in both Cheers and in his own show was the conflict arising between his intellectual, upper crust delicacy and snobbery and the more down-to-earth, average sensibilities of his family and friends— but finding ways to reach out and make connections despite it. The secondary major theme, I would say, is the irony of having the drive and even talent to help other while usually not having any ability to help oneself. It would be true to that spirit to find some way to continue these into a spinoff about the next generation.

So say we focused on Freddy as our new central or central-ish figure. We last saw him at age 13 or so, and though he was still a fairly young child, he had an established personality. He was in many ways like Frasier— very intelligent, academically gifted, but a bit awkward and alienated from more regular people, with a fragility due to a slightly neurotic upbringing. In that way, he could stand in as a new Frasier figure, special and advantaged in many ways, but struggling to find belonging and connection in a world he doesn’t fit into. (I have always said that was Frasier’s true driving issue— that he’s never felt like he belonged and will do just about anything to get a taste of that feeling.)

So that covers half of it, but where’s the other half—the conflict of a guy with those particular qualities and those particular emotional needs clashing with less rarified people in his life? There, it occurs to me, is where David Crane could come in.

Since he was just a baby when Frasier ended, his characterization is completely up in the air. It strikes me that he could have the opposite personality from Frederick’s. The idea came from an episode where Daphne is pregnant and Niles is worrying what if his son takes after her blue-collar side of the family and he has no ability to relate. So instead of a refined, patrician kind of person like his cousin, uncle, and father, older David could be a more typically masculine young man— tough, broey, interested in sports and cars, even rebellious, getting into trouble and not following the rules. Not only would this give him that opposition to Freddy, it would spiritually echo the central conflict from the parent show— instead of a regular-joe father struggling to get along with his snobbish sons, David is a regular-joe son who doesn’t get along with his snobbish father.

The question then would be how to get Freddy and David into a situation of appropriate proximity for this conflict to play out in a show. Freddy grew up in Boston while David is from Seattle, but their age difference presents the greatest challenge. Freddy is 15 years older than David— what scenario could put them in regular contact that also wouldn’t be a grown man fighting with a child that isn’t his? I think you’d have to cast David as something APPROACHING a peer of Freddy’s for this to work at all.

So I gave it some thought and came up with the following idea. I’d set the show in Boston in the year 2022, six years from now and nineteen years after we last saw Frasier. A 33-year-old Freddy still lives and works there. He’s in some sort of professional job that he’s kind of a workaholic at— it’s probably too cheesy to have him be a psychiatrist too, but not sure what instead, maybe adjunct professor —but he’s pretty lonely because he’s kind of awkward and doesn’t relate to other people that well. (He probably sees a psychiatrist for it!) His dating life is nonexistent. He’s in contact with his mother, who still lives in Boston but who he tries to avoid seeing, and his father, who he talks to most on the phone because he lives in San Francisco with his wife. (I decided Frasier and Charlotte work out.) He’s doing okay, but his status as a child genius led to high expectations he never could really meet, and the vague disappointment and pressure from his parents seriously stress him out.

The change comes when David shows up on his doorstep. He was never that close to his cousin David— he’s fifteen years older and lived all the way across the country —but he knows they don’t have much in common. David played varsity sports, is obsessed with working on his car, and was constantly in and out of trouble at school. Basically the polar opposite of Freddy. Last he’d heard was that Uncle Niles had pulled some strings to ensure that David got accepted to college at his alma mater, Yale. But it turns out that partway through his freshman year, David got expelled for an incident that involved a prank gone wrong. Now he’s in Boston at Freddy’s, the only person he knows on the east coast, not sure what to do with himself.

Now Freddy gets tasked by the family to keep an eye on David, help him find his way and keep him out of trouble. Maybe Freddy helps David get enrolled at another Boston-area college, one more suited to him than Yale. In the process of respectively looking out for and needing one another, they could have their high-low personality clashes, as well as find common ground and each help the other learn what they lack. The age difference could mirror the parent show’s father-son dynamic, but it’s not so extreme as to shut out also playing on a brothers dynamic.

Much as I like focusing on the brothers thing, which could nicely echo the best part of Frasier, I’d really love to get Alice Doyle in there, somehow. An early idea I had is that she and David ended up in Boston is that a lovesick David followed her there and she rejected him, leaving him directionless and in need of Freddy’s support. But not only might that be too much on the bad side of sitcommy, Alice is also six years older, so I don’t know If that would really make sense. But otherwise it’s a bit coincidental that they both ended up there after growing up in Seattle. There are a ton of colleges in the Boston area, so maybe I could use that to say she’s going to grad school there? I’m not sure. Also, Niles and Daphne could have had other kids in the intervening time— one episode implied to give a future glimpse of their next child, a daughter —who could maybe appear sometimes too.

It wouldn’t have any of the main Frasier cast as regulars, probably— at one point they were the best-paid actors on television, and even though they’re not the superstars they were then, they’re still probably too expensive for that. I mean, if one of them wanted to, I could probably work them in, but there would be plenty of opportunities for guest appearances. I'd love to have Lilith pop up semi-regularly as his horrifying mother. Hell, in Boston, you could even have folks from Cheers.

If I could get any of them for regular guest spots, it would be David Hyde Pierce. And not just because I adore him, though I really do. Him appearing would allow for the demonstration of the tension between him and David, a son he doesn’t really relate to and is somewhat disappointed in. It would be a fun way to harken to Martin’s relationship to Niles and Frasier without reproducing it exactly. Of course, if you have Niles, you’d need Jane Leeves to be Daphne too.

What would I call it? I guess, in keeping with precedent, the obvious title is “Freddy,” but it doesn’t have the same power as the Freddy character isn’t firmly established in viewer’s minds the way Frasier was coming off of Cheers. But what else would work? "The Cousins Crane"? "Crane Boys"? I'd want something that uses the connection to the original as marketing, but still is representative of the new piece.

The child actor who played Freddy, Trevor Einhorn, is still working as an adult. He never blew me out of the water with his acting or anything, so I don’t know if he could carry his own show, but I like the continuity of it. Though I did see him in a role on Mad Men, where he had the distinction of giving Don Draper the frankest, most on-point read he ever received— “You have no character! You’re just handsome!” —a line that one day I will include in an analytical essay on the Power of Pretty in storytelling.



For tomorrow’s entry of 31P31D, I’m going to post a scene I wrote for this. Looking at how long this got, I decided to post the musing and “pitch” information separately today. It’s not the best use of my time to work on something like this, but 31P31D require writing something. And this was on my mind right now. Though I know it’s basically a pointless exercise.

UNLESS NBC IS LISTENING. CALL ME AND WE’LL TALK.
breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)
I saw the trailer for Bojack Horseman season three-- due out this coming month on July 22nd, woohoo! --and despite having ten thousand better things to do with my time, I could not resist going over it with a fine-tooth comb for clues about the upcoming storylines that I can't wait to see.



It looks like Bojack, thanks to the acclaim of his performance in Secretariat, has become not only successful but cool. Even though his book made him relevant for the first time in years in season two, he was still not really all that well regarded, but it looks like Secretariat was enough to change the perception of him. In fact, he's up for an Oscar for it, which was set up at the end of the last season by the "Oscar whisperer" Ana Spanikopita taking over his campaign for it.

Bojack declares at the first word his success that he feelings "awesome," but Diane expresses doubt over whether it's really making him happy, which continues Bojack's struggle to find anything that actually does. He resents her pointing that out, but pins the possibility for meaning in his life on whether or not he wins the Oscar. Despite this increased profile, he still gets recognized for Horsin' Around, which he resents. Possibly part of a theme of how you can't outrun your past, even if you reinvent yourself as someone better?

There's a brief shot of a messed-up-looking Bojack snorting white powder, which could be coke given the character's history with it, or it could be a fake out to ratchet up the tension of the trailer. Given the show's particular style of humor, there's certainly a chance they might have a joke about snorting some other substance as if it were drugs. But it might also be an indication of a breakdown or part of a habit storyline.

Todd points out that the movie will result in countless people having the opportunity to judge him all over the country, which distresses him. Bojack has always been afraid the judgment of other people, usually being found wanting, but the idea that this is a new enough sensation for him to still be troubled by it rings a bit false to me. That's been the situation for him every time he's done a movie or television show, why would that fear become acute in this case? Perhaps because he's more proud of it, because it's more important than the dreck he did before?

Of course there is the issue that most of the performance in the film isn't actually him, but his image and voice recreated with CGI. Is he going to have pangs over the fact that he's getting credit and praise for a performance that he didn't actually give? The trailer gives no indication. I think it could go either way-- it's a good source of drama, allowing Bojack to explore the fact that he hasn't even earned the one moment of serious respect he's being given, but the fact that his replacement with CGI got treated mostly like a joke in the moment may mean they're going to gloss over it. When they say he's likely up for an Oscar, does he protest that it's not him? I can't remember, I should check the episode again. But he does later in the trailer say "I don't know if I should win Oscar. I don't know if I want to," to Ana Spanikopita. The self-loathing is still a big part of him, and it could tie back to the fraud of the performance.

Bojack backs a car, inexplicably in his house, into his pool. The mistake of a messed-up man, either chemically or emotionally, but no context is given except that it seems to be in the middle of a party. Is the car a gift? Is he responding in some way to the attention of the crowd, which historically has made him act stupid? The image is framed on his face, and the way he goes into the water recalls his plunge from the balcony into the pool in the opening credits-- depicting a moment when he is DEFINITELY not doing well.

Bojack in cars is a frequent motif in this trailer. Not sure if there's significance there. The show does take place in LA, after all. I guess they've had a lowkey presence throughout all the series so far, indicators of his wealth, his tendency to use them to run away from his problems, and his spoiled carelessness, such as how he never bothers to fix his wrecked SUV in the second season.

An interviewer-- a manatee who's probably from Manatee Fair but sadly not Christine Baranski-voiced Amanda Hannity --asks Bojack what's next for him and he panics. He doesn't want to look ahead. He want to remain in this moment because things are finally going well for him, and change risks losing that. Also, planning for the future requires work he doesn't want to do. He wants to have arrived and never have to struggle for anything ever again. A man who fears he has no future.

Princess Carolyn telling Bojack how great he is. A development I find rather disturbing. Bojack has fucked her over so many times in so many ways, I don't like seeing her pandering to his nonsense. I prefer her when she's kicking his ass in gear with tough love for at least something of her own benefit. I wonder if they're exploring the idea that, smart as she is, she's as changeable by fame and hype as anyone. That's a little disturbing but could make for interesting character stuff. But she hammers home what's wrong with him in his inability to like himself, despite the fact that he does have a lot going for him. That means it could be making a joke of how un-pepping her pep talk is. Hard to tell what's a joke and what's significant sometimes.

Bojack's house gets trashed, presumably by partying, a good visual metaphor for the destructiveness of the lifestyle.

Fans with camera phones mob him as he sports a Vincent Adultman-style trenchcoat and fedora, as well as epic bags under the eyes. Presaging a freak out, probably.

J.D. Salinger sulks in the background of a shot of Mr. Peanutbutter, making him one of the only recurring minor characters I've seen.

An electric eel tases him in the aisle of an airplane, which I find hilarious.

Mr. Peanutbutter blithely carries away his struggling, screaming accountant, saying "It's going to be great, as it always is, from my perspective." Pure humor well within the character's wheelhouse, no hinting at anything heavy. But Diane came back from Cordovia without telling him, which he basically agreed to pretend to ignore, and I doubt that will go on forever even with his obliviousness. They've been hinting that the two of them have issues despite their love for each other, and I wonder what form they're going to take in season 3. The fact that I think Diane partially likes being with him because he basically just validates her and never challenges her in any way, even when she's wrong, is something I'm expecting to blow up sooner or later. I find their relationship shockingly fascinating, like no other on television, so I look forward to how it continues.

There are some completely context-free moments of Bojack in apparently an underwater city with a bubble on his head. Maybe he's promoting his movie? I guess it's where the fish people live, and land dwellers can visit there in this manner. One shot has Bojack swimming away from what looks like an underwater exploded bubblegum factory with a tiny seahorse under his arm. Is it a child? Does he develop a relationship with it?

Princess Carolyn tackles Bojack in the Elefante restaurant, so at least that means she's not going to be completely taken in by his new cache.

Todd kisses a girl who looks like a female version of himself. Romance for Todd, I guess, which they've never tackled seriously before. Will it be serious this time, or played for laughs?

A flashback to the 80s where Carolyn hoses down a Bojack sprawled on the sidewalk, covered in what I would guess is his own vomit. There's also a shot of little Sara Lynn hugging him on the set of Horsin' Around, to which he reacts with surprise and uncertainty before cautiously returning it. The presence of the little seahorse makes me wonder if this is part of a storyline about Bojack connecting with a child? He mentions that he's hoping for his life to have meaning, and clearly the Oscar isn't doing it for him, but lots of people think parenthood does. Maybe that's where the seahorse child comes in?

Diane and Mr. Peanutbutter cuddle up in bed together, but Mr. Peanutbutter looks sad. I know there's conflict ahead, but is there hope for these two to figure out their relationship and make it work? I want to see them struggle, but I'm kinda rooting for them to work it out.

Princess Carolyn watches fireworks from her office window. She's alone, but she's in the place that makes her happiest. I notice she's got a lot of booze in front of her, though. A theme for the character is her inability to form meaningful, non-work relationships.

Bojack parties somewhere with a kippah on his head. Somebody's bar mitzvah? Jewish wedding? No idea of the significance, but Bojack actually looks like he's having a good time. The only overtly Jewish character I can think of off the top of my head in this is Lenny Turtletaub. Maybe a function related to him?

"It doesn't matter what we did in the past. Or how we'll be remembered. The only thing that matters is this one spectacular moment we are sharing together." Bojack says this over the last few clips starting with the 80s, ending with him in a move theater silhouetted MST3K-style against a screen with a realistic shot of space. A shockingly positive sentiment from him, presaging that he might actually make some progress this season. Also he's probably bonded with whoever it is he's saying it to, who is not clear. They are only a short, bulbous form in the chair beside him. So I think it's that little seahorse in a water helmet, which confirms my theater that Bojack will find meaning through a relationship with this child.

And that's the trailer! Miscellaneous thoughts:

No indication of a romance for Bojack. Kind of glad, as I balk at the idea of yet another woman for him. Especially given what just happened with Charlotte.

Not much of ANY one supporting character, but they all got a shot or two, so the gang will all be there.

No celebrity guest stars obvious. I think that's a classy move, though I'm curious who they're going to get.

The Oscar thing foreshadowed by the last season is clearly in full force, but NO INDICATION of the other plot thread set up for the future, the one which I AM DYING TO KNOW ABOUT. Who is Jill Pill, the mysterious playwright who knew Bojack from his "other show" which is not Horsin' Around, and wants him to come to New York to be in her new play. They're going to do that, right? I AM INSATIABLY CURIOUS and CANNOT WAIT TO SEE THAT UNFOLD. I am maddened I see no hint of it!


And that is way, way, way more thought than needed on this minute and a half long trailer.
breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)
For the past several weeks, I've done basically nothing except work and watch RuPaul's Drag Race. It comes from not leaving the house much except for job stuff and not having the energy for much beyond TV. So I've watched the seasons available through Amazon Prime of Drag Race and quite enjoyed them.

Drag has always been kind of fascinating to me. While I'm not particularly up on queer culture in any way, this part of it appeals to me because I like how it plays with the arbitrary nature of gender markers. Yeah, X, Y, and Z are traditionally considered indicators of femaleness, but look, a man can put them on just as easily! And vice versa. That kind of detachment from gender norms makes me smile. Drag is of course not the same as actual gender fluidity, but I like the idea of temporarily tossing your gender to the wind and being a different one for a while.

As I’ve mentioned, while my sexuality is about as firmly straight as you can get, my gender has always felt sort of incidental. Sure, I am definitely a woman and I’m comfortable with that, but it’s purely descriptive. If I’d been identified as a boy by society, I don’t think I’d be any more or less comfortable. So, while my straightness feels pretty intrinsic to the person that I am, my femaleness isn't. I often wonder what I'd be like if I were a boy, though I have no actual desire to be one. But I have always wanted to drag myself out and see how "masculine" I could make myself look. I think that would be a lot of fun to play that role for a little while. The technical aspects of drag, makeup, costuming, and other sorts of design, are up my alley, especially because they present a perennially interesting concept to me-- we have a problem (we need to make a male-identified person conform to feminine markers), how do we use technical skills to solve it?

I also think it’s interesting that the artifice of it is so clearly on display. In other aspects of culture related to appearance, I think there’s a lot of tendency to mask all the work and the seams involved. Oh, this model looks this glamorous all the time. She’s this thin naturally. This makeup isn’t hard to do. When in reality such images are the result of carefully composed, edited, stage-managed presentation. Even as I’m aware of that, in my own pursuit of beauty I’ve always gone for that ideal of “naturalness,” by which I mean that I look this good without accoutrement— so I would literally wake up like this. But making that possible actually means an enormous amount of work, including diet, exercise, skin-treating, and shaving. This is my real actual body, but it is certainly not like this left to its own devices. But in drag, I find it neat how the artifice is so embraced, so much part of the game. It's an interesting comment on what gender markers even are, if the strongest ones are those that any person, regardless of how they identify, could put on.
breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)
Apparently John Bernthal's performance in Daredevil season 2 on Netflix was so well-received that fans are calling for him to get his own solo series. And that is an absolutely terrible idea.

Now, I acknowledge Bernthal was really good, and easily the best representation of the character. I like but don't love the Daredevil series-- can't really put my finger on why, because I thought I would love it, and I can't exactly articulate what doesn't satisfy me about it --but I agree that Bernthal was one of the best parts of season 2. The thing is, the Punisher doesn't work as a character unless he's not the main focus.

Think about it. He has one of the lamest, most clichéd, dated stories of current superheroes. His family was fridged and now he kills everyone. There's not that much there. Plus, he doesn't GROW. His whole concept requires him to never grow or change in any way. If he does, he... has no schtick at all. He doesn't even have an interesting personality. A protagonist has to have something, some journey, some character to him! He has nothing to sustain a series that is interesting.

The Punisher only works if he's contrasted against another, more central character. He's supposed to make a protagonist question their own position in comparison to him. He did that on Daredevil, and that's a big reason, besides Bernthal's performance, why he worked. But on his own, what the hell would the series even be about? Just him killing lots of people? If he ever stops his mission, he has no point, and if he carries his mission on, who cares? What's interesting about a dude who just murders everyone with no personality?

So yeah. Fans deserve the ear of the creators of the properties they love. But they shouldn't be catered to, because they don't always judge with artistic concerns in mind.
breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)
I really enjoy the Agent Carter TV series. I love the character of Peggy Carter, I love how Hayley Atwell plays her, and I'm really enjoying the 1940s setting and the charming supporting cast, particularly Angie, Jarvis, and Howard Stark.

(Mild spoilers ahead.)

The one problem I have is whenever they try to pair her off with anyone romantically. The trouble is... I just can't see it. Despite my intense power-shipping of Cap and Peggy as my OTP, I have reluctantly come to accept that in the wake of his seeming death, Peggy probably would be better off moving on. (I DO NOT FEEL THE SAME FOR CAP, but that is a discussion for a different day...) But with the handful of gentlemen they have floated as romantic possibilities, I cannot shake the feeling that none of them are good enough for her. She had goddamn Chris-Evans-Captain-America, already-- or very nearly, anyway! How could any normal man compare after that?

Honestly in my head canon I saw her going for a nice, sweet, charming guy who honestly didn't REALLY excite her but made her feel better in a low-key, day-to-day sense. I have a hard time buying the kind of enthusiasm she's supposedly had for the dudes they've dangled so far. Souza is nowhere near special enough for her, and Dr. Wilkes is likeable but that's it. I guess I can see her deliberately choosing some guy who made her happier than being alone...but having that kind of enthusiasm for him? I don't really see it.

I mean, I guess hamburger is better than going hungry. But you can't pretend it compares to filet mignon.
breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)
In Mad Men, a television show that I would not say I like but still totally fascinates me, a recurring theme is the idea that things either ARE, or they AREN’T, the notion that some stuff just doesn't have that je ne sais quoi to make it what it is supposed to be. An example that recurs is the state of the Draper marriage, which to all surface appearances looks like the perfect idealized union of the 1960s, but in reality is fundamentally and fatally flawed within. Another example is when the advertising client Pepsi requests a shot-by-shot imitation of Ann-Margret singing Bye Bye Birdie, and the resulting imitation seems to have all the details of the original but for some reason none of the charm. It is, in keeping with the cynical attitude of the series, a rather bleak view, giving the implication that such things are immune to effort, growth, or development to become what they are trying to be. But even if you do reject the notion, as I do, that things can never improve or become what they are striving to be with effort or practice, there is still the ineffable factor to be considered that makes somethings different from other things. There is often something that we cannot quite put our finger on, sometimes an unquantifiable quality that can influence how we see, view, or experience a given thing.

I find this concept to be relevant when critiquing or even just experiencing art. Because art is to such a large degree subjective, despite the presence of rules of thumb that provide guidelines for what sort of artistic expression tends to be the most effective or moving, there will always be the matter of what appeals to individual taste and what does not. Or sometimes there can even be an unnameable reason why people like something even though it is qualitatively similar to something they dislike. If you have a piece of art that works, it almost does not matter what rules it breaks. The rules exist to help us figure out what works, but they are the means to the end of creating a reaction in the audience. If that reaction is caused anyway, adherence to rules is ancillary. There are many pieces of art that do not seem to conform to what we consider to be objectively good, but still managed to be good because they for whatever reason work on the audience.

When your primary medium is drama, as mine is, this can be especially present. A piece of drama is meant to be experienced beyond simply what the dramatist rights on the page. If a piece "plays well,” it often creates quite a different effect on the audience than when simply experiencing it through reading it and applying conventional literary assessment. Sometimes the difference is quantifiable, but sometimes it is very hard to pin down what is making the difference. And often it is completely subjective, a total matter of taste.

In interpretive pieces, like plays and screenplays, which require collaboration between numerous other artists in order to be fully realized, the other contributors may be that additional factor. Plenty of times, a dramatic work is rescued by the presence of a talented or charismatic actor, or a weak actor sinks even a good script. But even what makes a good or likable actor is hard to pin down. Generally we like people who are pretty and expressive. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and we each can see meaning in different things depending on our perspective. Sometimes we bring our own baggage to things, where an emotional response in us drives us to bring our own meaning that’s not necessarily being offered by the “text.” Betty Draper, to continue with the Mad Men example, reminds me of a lot of personal issues, so even though the actress is generally considered to be on the flat side, I find her compelling and fascinating even when perhaps objectively she is not. By contrast, I find Scarlett Johansson so wooden that any character played by her is immediately contaminated in my eyes, whereas plenty of other people don’t have nearly so much problem with her.

It’s tough to nail down things that can vary from person to person. I just know we can’t rely on hoping the audience will pick up the slack in our work, because we can never precisely predict what will speak to people and what won’t.
breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)
You don't know how much fun it was for me to get to teach about one of my favorite shows at Lesley today. Bojack was my one odd choice for material that I put on the syllabus, so it might have been a bit of a risk. Every other protagonist was either a classic or at least better known, with slightly more consensus on their cultural value. But I believe the show is brilliant with plenty to analyze, so I did it. And it was a blast.

We studied episode 1.08, "The Telescope," which I think is a great sample because it contrasts modern day Bojack, who we are following through the series, and the person he used to be before he got famous. It's great because it subtly presents us two parallel situations in his life and shows us how he reacts to each of them at that point in time, which reveals both the origin and the journey of his character.

The students were really engaged, which pleased me enormously. They usually do okay on that front, but I think it was particularly high this morning. Partially it was because we actually watched the episode in class. That meant there was nobody who "hadn't done the reading" and therefore nobody lacked context. It's also likely easier for them to connect with a thirty-minute cartoon about a horse than, say, a thousand lines of Ancient Greek poetry. I'm also a drama person, my professional focus is in how dramatic works function, so I had an even better grasp on it than usual. But the conversation was lively and interesting, and I think people actually started to connect with the ideas that I personally found so interesting and made me love the show.

Also I was observed today by another professor. It's a requirement for new Lesley teachers. I knew it would go okay, because I'm doing a pretty good job, but I was still a little nervous anyway. This is probably not the day I would have picked to be observed-- I felt a little guilty spending a third of the class showing a video, not to mention I probably would have chosen a more "proven" text to talk about. I was a bit concerned that it wouldn't be seen as sufficiently "academic." But I did a good job facilitating a cracking dialogue, and she thought the premise of my class was a good one. She even had a few helpful pieces of constructive criticism that I will use going forward.

But I really enjoyed teaching this show. I wish I could do more. Hell, I could do a whole seminar on how episode 2.11 is put together from a writing standpoint. Maybe someday I will. :-)
breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)
I was Betty Draper for Halloween this year, and I was pretty pleased how my costume turned out.



I used Mad Style, Tomandlorenzo.com's examination of costuming of Mad Men, to figure out how to create a look that would be iconically Betty. Floral patterns in blue and white were a frequent part of her wardrobe, and I wanted early season Betty, which meant a full skirt with a close bodice. So I dug around in thrift stores until I found a sundress with those features. I took it in a bit at the sides to make it fit better and to flare out the skirt a little more, but I wish I had done it even moreso. This promotional image was my primary inspiration.



For the accessories, I wore my costume pearls, my pearl stud earrings, my grandmother's ring to act as a wedding ring, and I bought a white beaded evening bag. I wanted a low-heeled white pump of some kind, and I found a very vintage looking pair with a crisscross strap. I put a short crinoline under the skirt to make it fuller. I even dug out this old-fashioned girdle I had for authenticity in the silhouette. A paper cigarette to wave around all night completed the look.



The only thing I didn't manage was Betty's hairstyle. Even though I dyed my hair blonder, it never got as light as January Jones's, and that tight, curled Grace Kelly-like style was just utterly beyond my skills. I've never been very good with hair at the best of times, much less something so labor-intensive as that. So I just put it up in a headband. A sixties look, actually, but Betty's look was always stuck in the fifties, so it wasn't quite right for the character. Overall, though, I was happy with the costume and enjoyed gesturing with my paper cigarette and making Betty bitchface.

breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)
As I've been going about my packed schedule, I've been using a favorite coping tactic of mine, where I listen to television like radio on my iPhone. I do this a lot, mostly with TV I've already seen and so doesn't require a lot of my attention, but lately all I've been wanting to take in this way are cooking showing. Netflix has a handful of shows I like, but the new one I've gotten into based on the recommendation of friends of Twitter has been the Great British Bake Off.

It's a really adorable show, with talented, enthusiastic contestants who are positive and supportive towards each other, tough but fair judging, and a minimum of manufactured reality-show drama. Everyone's so happy to be there, practicing their favorite craft and getting a chance for critiques from baking experts Mary Berry and Paul Hollywood, who they clearly all idolize. Plus I love the panoply of British accents on display. I'm not that much of a baker myself, much more of a cook, but I'm fascinated by the techniques by which they make so many delicious breads, pastries, and desserts. There's only season five currently available, but I really wish there were more.

I find myself also very interested in the differences between American and British bakery terminology. I already knew that "biscuit" tends to mean "cookie" in the UK, while what we call a "biscuit" they call a "bun," but it also seems to sometimes maybe mean "cracker." I'm not totally sure of the distinction there. As another example, they seem to use the term "sponge cake" differently than we do. I'm having a hard time phrasing the question to Google such that it delivers me the answer I'm looking for, but here in the US, I believe "sponge" has a fairly specific definition for a particular kind of cake, leavened with egg foam. It seems that the British use the term to encompass any kind of non-yeasted cake, whether made by the foam or the batter method, which we would call a "pound cake." I'm not certain, though, and I would welcome explanation from someone who knew the specific difference in meaning.

Amusingly, another thing that struck me was the absence of peanut butter. In America, peanut butter is one of the most popular flavors for, well, everything, but especially in dessert making. I can only think of two instances in season five where peanut was incorporated by anyone into anything, and I noticed in the first one it was referred to as "peanut" flavored, not "peanut butter," and in the second it didn't seem to be all that well-received. Judge Paul Hollywood complained it sealed his mouth shut. I've heard that nowhere on Earth is peanut butter as ubiquitous as it is in the States, but I was surprised it seemed to be such a niche thing for them.

I'd watched the Great British Sewing Bee a while ago, which is a spin-off idea from this and which I totally loved. The only criticism of that one I had was that it wasn't quite as creative as, say, Project Runway, the only other reality program I ever followed with any attention. On the Sewing Bee they mostly made thing from fairly standard patterns, and design was not a huge element of the challenge. By contrast, on Project Runway they are expected to design everything from scratch, push for originality, and draft or drape everything themselves. But I loved the positivity and emphasis on craftmanship the Bee had, plus the absence of all the interpersonal bullshit. The Bake Off, though, eliminates that problem by asking the contestant to bring in recipes of their own design, so I feel like the creative element is balanced with the technical. I really enjoy that about it.

I hope they post more seasons. I will watch the hell out of them. And of course it makes me want to bake more. Not the best impulse when one is on a no-processed-carbs diet, and God knows I don't really have the time right now. But perhaps I can do it for other people. I made Alton Brown's puffy chocolate chip cookies for my lit class the other day, and that was fun. Nothing makes people smile like baking for them!
breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)


You may have heard me talk of a weird little Netflix show about anthropomorphic animals that’s been getting a bit of press lately by the name of “Bojack Horseman.” More than once I’ve heard people express bewilderment at the appeal of an odd little work like this cartoon, and I confess I was there myself when I first heard of it. But after sticking it out to the end, (and several more times through after that) I am not only a convert, I am here to evangelize on its behalf. “Bojack Horseman” is my vote for most compelling show currently on television, and that’s because of how it portrays the “unlikeable tortured protagonist” in a way that no previous example has ever managed.

Created by Raphael Bob-Waksberg, the show is on the surface a cartoon critique of the celebrity world and culture using anthropomorphic animals, centering around a washed-up Bob Saget-style sitcom actor who happens to be a horse. From that description it hardly seems a fresh setup, but its true magic is within the story that setting is used to tell. The show juxtaposes extreme cartoon absurdity for the sake of humor with dark, character-driven storytelling that studies a fascinating anti-heroic character that you both judge and sympathize with, to a level you wouldn’t have believed possible.

On the surface, particularly in the first few episodes before the plot arc kicks in, Bojack appears to be not much different from your typical Unsympathetic Comedy Protagonist. He seems characterized by qualities that at this point have been played out as comedic flaws— crass, drunk, and morbidly self-absorbed. On top of that, he is massively privileged, a mega-rich Hollywood actor who, despite being a horse, is of a background that implies being White and Upperclass. And, as we did with fellows like Don Draper, we soon find out that Bojack hates himself.

The TV landscape recently has been saturated with these kinds of protagonists— privileged white men whose pain adds fascinating dimension to their otherwise fairly exciting lives. Don Draper was a miserable unwanted child trying to hide his true self, but damn if he didn’t look sexy kicking down doors in impeccable suits while women threw themselves at him. Walter White was a bitterly disappointed man cruelly used by fate, but his adventures in the meth game sure gave him a lot of adventure and control back. I think as a culture we’ve become a little bored with this, as we’ve burned out on feeling sorry for sad dudes who can’t get it together when so many of us have fewer advantages and significantly less sexy lives.

The difference, however, is in how the facts of Bojack’s condition are presented to us. Bojack’s behavior whips across the punish-lavish axis in a sick cycle, from self-flagellating when he hates himself to self-indulging from when he feels sorry for himself. While one of the most accurate depictions of a certain kind of depression ever committed to TV, it also comes off as more than a little gross. But this very quality is what saves the show from being just a portrait of an unlikeable, over-privileged sad sack unable to appreciate what he has. Rather than trying to depict this as sympathetic in any way, on the contrary, the narrative never stops judging him.

There’s an old chestnut that says a writer should never judge their characters, but this story is richer for the creators ignoring that. When Bojack screws up, when he makes a truly destructive or even deplorable choice, the writing never asks you to see those actions as anything other than what they are. The results is it gives the viewer the breathing room to both castigate Bojack and find some understanding for him. He is obsessed with the notion that he’s broken somehow, that his inherent badness can never be changed or overcome, so why not do bad things if he’s bad anyway? But even as this provides a reason we are able to understand for why Bojack makes terrible choices again and again, it never asks us to find that an acceptable excuse.

What this gives us is a notion of accountability for Bojack. Despite the brilliance of both their shows, Don Draper and Walter White were not allowed a lot of room for any real growth or change. That’s partially the nature of the serial storytelling form, where you cannot drift too far from your premise without losing your audience. But it gets tiresome after a while watching these guys make the same mistakes over and over again. On top of that, Don and Walter very rarely ever saw real, true consequences for their actions. The important people in their lives put up with their antics, eventually forgave and came back to them, or at least came to a place of peace with them.

Bojack, however, is subjected to the consequences of being a massive self-centered dick. He is not granted forgiveness every time he asks for it, his bridges do get burned, and he has to live with the repercussions of the stupid choices he makes. Not only does this feel more real, it also has an effect on his character, driving him to try new things if he ever wants to change his life. Though he fails and regresses, through it all, there’s a sense of two steps forward, one step back, that makes him a little less contemptible. Bojack is not strong, so he breaks in the face of great adversity. But the fact that he pits himself against that adversity despite his weakness makes him more interesting to watch.

Finally, the show strikes the right balance between keeping his life interesting without excessively glamorizing it. When we watch Don and Walter, there is always a sense of envy at how cool Don is, or the excitement of Walter’s life, which undermines the message that these men are truly suffering. But you never for a moment wish you were Bojack, not for all the Secretariat movies, houses in the hills, or impulse-buy restaurants in the world. From his abusive childhood, to the hollowness of his accomplishments, to the way he’s so widely regarded as a joke even at the height of his career, there’s a genuineness to his misery that makes the notion of his self-loathing believable. It’s made even more poignant when we see flashes of the character in his youth, before the real grossness set in.

This is perhaps the great tragedy, and the great brilliance, of the show—once, Bojack was a genuinely nice guy, trying to do his best, who cared about other people and was working VERY hard to escape being the kind of bad person he felt like he was doomed to be. It makes seeing him lose that battle actually rather heartbreaking, and you find yourself actually holding out hope that he will find some way to get better. Because you know he did once put in that effort, you are driven to pity this man, even as you never want to absolve him. And if there’s not one moment a season— usually in the end of the eleventh episode —where you find yourself yelling at the screen, begging Bojack to not to shipwreck himself on the rocks of his own self-loathing, well, I don’t know what kind of person you are.

That’s a hell of a lot more than you ever expected from a thirty-minute cartoon about a horse.
breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)


YEAH I WENT THERE.

I don't know what's going on here. I just fucking love the show.

"BACK IN THE NINETIES I WAS IN A VERY FAMOUS TV SHOW..."

Day #23 - Turn It Off )
breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)
Watched season 3 of Orange is the New Black and really enjoyed it. It's an exceptionally good show, telling lots of stories you don't often see on television.

One thing that puzzles me about it is that, for all their wide perspective and dedication to depicting people without sufficient representation, the show simply refuses to refer to "bisexuality." It's really strange. They have a number of bi characters on it-- Lorna Morello, for example, and of course the lead character Piper. But they never use that word.

There's a bit of a running gag about how Piper's people seem to be unable to understand that she can be attracted to either of those genders. When she's with Alex, they all continually ask if that means she's gay now. On top of that, the lesbian characters bitch about how much it sucks to fall for "straight girls" like her. It's a pretty clear and seemingly accurate depiction of biphobia. I get that. But I feel like the fact that NOBODY-- not even Piper herself --can seem to actually call it for the bisexuality that it is comes off as super weird. I mean, she must have heard the term somewhere, right? Why wouldn't she use it to respond to the people who want to box her into one thing or the other? It's almost like the SHOW is biphobic, with its weird refusal to give the obvious name to the situation.

That seems weird, given how much the show seems to embrace the notion that people don't always fit into your little boxes. The only other thing I can think of is if they're trying some weird foreshadowing for the idea that Piper ISN'T actually bi-- that she really IS gay, and that eventually she's going to completely give up the pretense of being interested in men at all. And her refusal to assert herself as bi is a small way of indicating that label doesn't really represent her.

I actually think that's a little silly, even if that's what they're going for. People can be different things at different stages of their life, and no one stage is necessarily less true than any other just because it was transitory. Refusing to use the term bi comes off to me as weirdly biphobic in the same manner as the biphobia of characters in the show.
breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)
I remember when I first saw Iron Man 1 in theaters. I found Tony to be incredibly hot, and this annoyed me, because he was a jerk, and I didn’t like the idea that such jerkiness wouldn’t kill my attraction to him. Every time I see Jon Hamm, the guy who plays Don Draper, out of character, I’m always struck— “He’s so attractive! Why do I never notice this?” I watch a ton of Mad Men, he’s super-handsome, and he looks fabulous in the period drag. But it’s because his character, while admittedly interesting, is such a jerk that I find him completely repellent when he’s portraying the man. This pleases me, because as above, I don’t want to be attracted to jerks.

There’s a tired old stereotype that women are attracted to jerks. It’s the only explanation some can manage to come upon for why certain awful men have no trouble finding women, when men without their obvious downsides get ignored. It irritates me a lot, as it gets used as a justification for men to treat women badly. So I get annoyed when it seems I verify the stereotype by wanting to jump Iron Man’s bones, and smug with myself when I blow it by being immune to the charms of a Don Draper.

But the truth is, women AREN’T attracted to jerks. Women are attracted to the qualities that enable men to be jerks in such obvious ways without experiencing the immediate social pushback that stops average people from being jerks. When Tony says something rakish and nasty, he’s displaying his wit. When Don solves a problem by saying something aggressive rather than apologizing, he demonstrates guts. Tony may have a huge ego, but it shows a wellspring of self-confidence. And everybody likes good-looking people; beauty can allow people to get away with murder. All of these things— beauty, wit, confidence, courage, power —make people attractive to others. While the use they put these qualities to may be undesirable, or even off-putting, the fact remains that they still require the possession of these qualities in order to perpetrate them. And that is what is sexy.

I think that’s an important thing to remember. It’s a shame that kindness and gentleness aren’t so paramount on that list of attractive qualities that the absence of them can cancel out the approval, but I think this explains what’s going on there. At least, a hell of a lot better than the theory that people actually like badness and being mistreated.
breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)
My favorite blog these days is Tom and Lorenzo: Fabulous and Opinionated, a style and media criticism site that really attacks the subject from a perspective I can get behind. They are a married couple, one with a background in film and the other in fashion, who do commentary on the world of fashion and have a roster of television that they review. I’m very interested in fashion design, but I get frustrated with the associated toxic consumerism, body image, and superficiality. From Tom and Lorenzo, however, their knowledge and perspective keeps it in the realm of criticism of the art of dressing and clothing design.

Tom Fitzgerald and Lorenzo Marquez are extremely educated and intelligent. They predicate their work on the ideas that clothing is communication, dressing and design are art forms, and different circumstances call for different approaches. They make critiques as to how things look and what a given person might have looked better in, but they openly acknowledge that fashion should be fun and that in the real world people should wear what they want. They never criticize people’s bodies or looks, only how they are styled and how their clothing, hair, and makeup choices affect their appearance. They are aware of issues of class, race, and gender, which influences their perspective, and they make special effort to feature people of color and events that are specific to them.

Where they really shine, in my opinion, is their television crit. Tom in particular— being a nerd with a film degree —is incredibly observant of what’s going on in a particular TV show, and always has something incisive to say about the story meaning, the design choices, and the value thereof. They’re super-good about always taking a show on its own merits, but never dismissing anything just for its genre or conventions. I’d really enjoyed what they’ve had to say on many diverse shows, from Mad Men to American Horror Story to Daredevil. They particularly shine when they’re analyzing well-done costume design. Their series Mad Style, which examines the storytelling contribution of the truly excellent wardrobe on the show Mad Men, is not only freaking fascinating, it really is an education experience on how really narrative costuming is done.

I highly, highly recommend their blog for their intelligence, their perspective, and their taste. Anyone who loves to examine how various types of design speak and tell stories is going to love their work.
breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)
Spoilers ahead for Mad Men season 7. Sorry.

Betty Draper died of cancer. And I don’t know how to react.

Lung cancer, of course. It was on Mother’s Day. I wasn’t especially bothered, even though it was the first Mother’s Day without my mom. I don’t miss her any more on some arbitrary day than I miss her any other time. But on Mad Men, the one that aired last night, Betty Draper got diagnosed with cancer and got ready to die. And… I don’t know what.

I don’t know why it should strike me so. Betty and my mother were very, very little alike. Betty was cold, childish, and petty from an abusive home, while Mom was warm, selfless, and strong. Betty was everything my mother was trying to escape by leaving the tiny town she grew up in and distancing herself from her own mother, who was loving but still kind of self-absorbed and small-minded. But still. But still. It’s all tied up, somehow, my mother and Betty and the women of Mad Men. A similar culture shaped her. Taught her to smoke. For everything she did to move past it, it still infected her with the constant fear that people would judge her for not being perfect. Just like Betty.

I remember how thrown I was seasons ago when Betty gained all that weight and the possibility of her having cancer then was raised. It tweaked me because of how Mom’s cancer put sixty pounds on her. Two shockingly beautiful blonde women completely physically changed by the specter of sickness. It’s stupid, but it always seemed like people as beautiful as they were had some sort of armor. To see that armor taken away showed just how vulnerable they were. So vulnerable that eventually they died. Sally’s mother and mine.

I don’t know. Sally is my mother, not Betty. My grandmother was closer to Betty-- and she died of cancer too. But now Sally has become me. I become my mother.
breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)
I have an odd relationship to the show Mad Men. I've watched it several times through, and I really admire it on many levels. Currently it's my best reference for the writing of subtext, something I'm really bad at and need to learn to improve. And the costuming is masterful; analysis of it really teaches you how to do it. But I wouldn't exactly say I like it. I get weary of how consequences for people's negative actions tend to not have all that much of an impact because of the need to keep the show going, and nobody ever grows or changes, which I find wearying.

My mom watched the show before I did. She found it fascinating as a depiction of a time period she remembered very differently. She was born in 1953, so she was a child in the '60s, and her family was working class in a small industrial town, "where people didn't have as much, and they weren't as miserable." She said she found it fascinating to see those people who lived the life that most of the people in her world aspired to-- especially when it didn't seem to make them any happier.

I connect it to her not only because she introduced it to me, but also because of the character of Sally Draper. Personality- and circumstance-wise, they were almost nothing alike. Sally was a privileged girl with a rough, rebellious relationship with her divorced parents, while my mother was nice and well-behaved, "ethnic" for her town, without much money, in a family that was loving and close. But I can't help but think of her when I watch that beautiful little blonde girl, born only a year later than Mom was, experiencing a number of the same cultural influences. Nobody pays any attention to Sally's potential; my mom was always regretful that she was never encouraged to be anything but a teacher or a nurse, when she was smart enough to do anything. And then, of course, there's the smoking.

I still find that part of Mad Men hard to watch. Not just the fact that everybody's smoking all the time, but the culture around smoking. It's ubiquitous, expected, almost enforced. That's the culture that taught my mom the habit. She didn't start as young as Sally-- who I think was around twelve --but not that long later, in high school. My granddad didn't even do it and took a hard line against it. But things still ended up how they ended up. So it's a little hard for me. To watch the culture shape that little blonde girl in the way it shaped another little blonde girl into something that ended up killing her.

That's kind of over-the-top and maudlin. I still watch the show; I've watched it like three times through. But I think about it.

Sitcommy

Mar. 18th, 2015 08:59 am
breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)
I've been reading John Finnemore's blog entries on the design process behind writing the episodes of Cabin Pressure. I always find that sort of thing fascinating, as I both love glimpses into the artistic process, as well as find it instructive to see how writers I admire go about making their work effective.

Blabbing about Cabin Pressure and sitcom writing that interests no one but me. )
breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)
As I have occasionally mentioned before on this blog, I don't think I'm the most talented when it comes to writing comedy. I like to think of myself as a fairly witty person, who can make you laugh with a clever remark in conversation now and again. But when it comes to coming up with real jokes or funny lines, that's more the province of other writers. In my writing program, I thought of genuinely funny stuff as much more the province of my friend and boss Bill Pendergast, or how Julie Weinberg had such a knack for dark comedy.

Still, I certainly enjoy it for its own sake, but even moreso, I like it as a way to add balance and lightness to a heavier narrative. I've always felt that even really serious drama needs something to keep it from going into the territory of "grimdark." So, even though it's not always easy for me, I am endeavoring to get better at it so that I can effectively include it in my own work.

My favorite comedy of all time is probably Frasier, which I thought managed to be extremely funny while still maintaining a level of intellectualism, narrative and character integrity, and did not resort to tired or offensive stereotyping in jokes. I'm very inspired by the style of comedy therein with its level of wit and cleverness. I've also been watching Cheers, which happens to be the series from which Frasier spun off, and is considered to be a required text for anyone who hopes to write comedy. Honestly I find Cheers to be a bit dated and not nearly as funny as Frasier, nor does it have anywhere near the dramatic integrity, but it has a heart and charm to it that inspired countless humor pieces that came after it. I'm hoping to learn from examples like these.

The funniest thing I ever wrote is probably The Late Mrs. Chadwick, my most performed ten-minute play. The main joke, the resolute refusal to compromise stiff-upper-lip British manners, is one that plays to my strengths. I was pleased to find at the recent staged reading of Vivat Regina that pretty much all the jokes played, and in fact were some of the audience's favorite parts of the piece.

Most recently I've been working on a silly little side project, a fan fiction for Cabin Pressure, a BBC radio comedy that I find extremely funny. I started it just to have a little low-pressure positive feedback on something, and I'm determined not to stress about it, but I have been making an effort to make it not only funny, but as much in the style of the source material as possible. It has a particular kind of dry British humor that is very distinctive. I do find myself struggling to come up with bits and gags. I'm positive it's not as funny as any of the originals, but I do think I've managed to capture the characters' unique voices. Some commenters have even said things to that effect; my favorite so far was the one who said if the creator John Finnemore retired, they'd tune in if I were the replacement! :-) That's encouraging. But I know I still need more practice. Like any aspect of writing, you got to put in the work!
breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)
No. No, damn it, this wasn't supposed to happen. I was just watching frickin' Arrow on Netflix. It's not great, but it's interesting and the guy's gorge and I'm weak, okay? I got to the end of season 1 and then Netflix kicked me back to the home screen and I saw the ad for some stupid Netflix original cartoon called "Bojack Horseman." It looked like just another stupid gross half-hour animated comedy. But I like anthropomorphic animals, epecially horses, and apparently I'm a little kid again when animal characters are my thing, so I clicked on the damn thing.

And it's stupid. It's not even good. The first few episodes are downright gross at times. But... but it's got a story. It's growing into an actual narrative, and the characters are becoming people. It's kind of genuinely funny, sometimes, actually. And it's got more anthromorphic animal characters than just Bojack. In fact, I told myself that if they do that thing I hate where they pair the male anthro character with only conventionally hot human women, like on fucking Family Guy, I was going to WALK. But they didn't, there's lots of anthros, male and female, and they make jokes related to what kind of animal they are. Like, the "black sheep of the family" is an actual black sheep, or when an Aryan Nation gang contains hairless cats and white rats with pink eyes. Because I am a LAME ASS who digs ANIMAL PUNS and GAH they're actually giving everybody DIMENSIONS and I'm starting to CARE and WHY DO I LIKE THIS SHOW!!?!?!

Profile

breakinglight11: (Default)
breakinglight11

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 14th, 2025 11:13 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios