One of the perks of
watching a lot of movies is that you see screenwriters getting more and more
creative as time goes on. Writers always try to come up with something that
hasn’t been attempted/done before. And nowhere has this been more apparent than
in the morbid niche of movie storytelling that is: the death scene.
I must have seen
thousands of people meet their maker on the silver screen during my short life
on this earth. Explosions, gunshots, you name it. But there are far more
creative ways to kill a human –as movies tell us.
So here I wish to have
a little (morbid) quiz. I state ten causes of death and in the spoiler tag
below it is the movie it came from. See how many you get.
Theme: Deadly jewellery.
"That necklace loses marvelous on you!" the hangman said to the convict. This time around I’m looking for things people wear; jewellery mostly. I’ll be specific when I have to be.
1. Death by explosive necklace.
Wedlock.
2. Death by magnetic collars and a sharp discus.
Wild Wild West (I still like this movie- don’t know why really)
3. Death by whip necklace.
Teen agent.
4. Death by poison in ring.
The iron mask (difficult to actually find this trope in cinema – I know it featured in an Asterix comic).
5. Death by bracelet.
Moonraker.
6. (Almost death by) cursed necklace.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood prince.
7. (Almost death by) cursed bracelet.
The Mummy returns.
8. Death by necktie.
Frenzy.
9. Death by pearl necklace.
Deep red.
10. (Almost death by) Chinese finger trap.
The Addam's family.
No Final Destination-death in this one for a change.
This was intended to be a short article. But then something happen that I found rather intriguing so I included it.
So let’s start with the question from the title: Why did I stop watching the Walking Dead?
The short answer: because I ran out of comics!
When the Walking Dead first started I, being a big fan of Frank Darabont, decided to give this show a go. So…I watched the first season and then I immediately went to the comics to see ‘what happens next’.
I lived that way up to, a little bit more than, issue 100.
That’s when Negan showed up and, to me, that’s about the time this new world ‘settled’.
The comic continued. Abraham died, Glenn died. Suddenly we were at war with humans and occasionally some zombies showed up. It’s basically The bold and the beautiful non-so-beautiful.
This is by the own admission of the writers.
In fact –to their admission- even Rick is fair game.
Which strikes me a bit strange because why then would he be the main character?
My favourite storyline came and went.
So why did I keep watching the show then? (I mean, if I knew what was coming up?)
That’s because one of my favourite storylines of the comic is when Carl loses his eye. That was something I wanted to see for myself.
To elaborate a bit this storyline is actually better fleshed out in the comic.
In one issue Carl kills a boy because the boy has lost his mind and killed his twin (much like that ‘look-at-the-flowers’-girl in the show). Then a few issues later Carl is in ‘Alexandria'. There another boy challenges Carl about his father Rick courting his mother. Now, this new boy doesn’t have the first clue about Carl and what he's been through. So Carl dismisses the other teenager with some harsh words. The boy leaves the room crying.
This is a boy that never lived beyond the walls. This is a boy that never once had to make a hard choice. Carl had (to).
During the (now) legendary second season –
when the kid couldn’t sit
still for a second-
poor little Carl started popping up on all kinds of
Internet lists of ‘actors that has to be removed from a show a.s.a.p.’
Which always struck me a bit as ‘grownups being mean to a kid’.
I think
the producers decided to have some fun with this ‘Coral hatred’
because
ever since the opening credits have this wonderful phrase next to the
actor’s name.
Then, in issue 99 (I believe), all comes to show. This new boy has no experience going through a zombie-maze and thus dies (in a gut wrenching tragic way). And due to this Carl loses an eye.
I liked this in the comics. The fact that Carl is so messed up that he, unknowingly, set the events that would cost him his eye.
So I stayed on the bandwagon for that to happen on the TV-show and then I stayed some more. Get myself a dose of some Negan smugness. Which was/is enjoyable. But at the same time you also get filler episode after filler episode. So when the show returned this year I figured I’d postpone the episodes until I feel like it (never a good sign). And I still haven’t gotten around to it.
But what happened?: the haircut spoiler.
Having said all that doesn’t mean that I stopped reading the online comments about the show. And then the mid-season finale happened. Spoilers from this point on:
Spoiler
Coral got bitten! There you have it. Now there are several ways this storyline could go. Carl dies (turns into a zombie or goes out on his own terms). Or Carl lives (it was a Whisperer who bit him, the boy is immune, a spacecraft lands and cures him – take your pick).
What I find interesting here is the fact that the actor playing Carl (Chandler ‘I hope he was named after Mathew Perry’s character in Friends’ Riggs) is planning to go to college. So he might be written out because he wants to move state. Or, perhaps, this whole ‘college and shooting a TV-show aren’t combinable’ is just a charade to keep the audience guessing and Carl will be back this year. The thing I wish to point out here, though, is the ‘haircut-element’. Carl has long hair so it can cover his lost eye. So there’s a reason for him looking like Bigfoot’s twice-removed cousin. Now a few years back when Jon Snow (Kit Harrington) ‘died’ on Game of Thrones. The actor joked that he could finally have a haircut – which he, then, did not take because he was set to return. Carl/Coral/Chandler, however, did take one... Anyway, we won’t know for sure until the next episode. I guess I’ll read about it how it all goes down. It’s a lot less frustrating to read a summary here and there than to sit through another poorly written Sasha/Rosita episode.
A private detective is called upon by a former flame to investigate the death of her grandfather. She suspects that one of her relatives living in the old man’s estate is in fact a murderer. Who did it and why? On the first visit to the ‘crooked house’ Charles Hayward discovers that each and every member of this strange family is more than capable of murder.
The crooked house has, until now, been the only Agatha Christie novel yet to be filmed. It is also one of the most wickedly dark (and Agatha Christie’s personal favourite) stories she ever wrote.
I for one can attest that it is my favourite amongst Christie’s more obscure novels.
It is perhaps a bit convenient that at the time of the big cinema release of another Agatha Christie adaptation (Murder on the orient express) that this smaller sized drama should come about. But I’m not complaining. Not if it is a drama that is so incredibly well make.
At least it’s not Hollywood bringing out two competing volcano or asteroids movies at the same time.
The rule of thumb when it comes to adapting a novel for the first time has to be: ‘get it exactly right’. Meandering and changes to the story can happen at a later (re)adaptation. For the first one the stakes are high to bring the pages to the screen as accurately as possible.
Knowing this (and wanting this) I simply cannot find a singular flaw (but one –I’ll leave it for the spoiler) in this movie.
Though I must admit that I knew the ‘Who’ in this whodunit beforehand. So, perhaps, people going in blank might see the obviousness that I disregarded as my ‘insiders knowledge’.
The cast The cast is comprised with character actors of the highest order. Gillian Anderson is –once again- having a ball playing a different kind of character.
Just take a look at her resume: The cold doctor in Hannibal, the weird bride in Great expectations and, of course, her ‘facts first’ agent Scully in the X-files. She must be living the actress’ dream of being capable (in roles offered) to take on variety. Her turn in Crooked house as the self-centred, faded actress, Magda is –like the bourbon the character pours herself at 10 in the morning: ‘just what the doctor ordered’.
The other pillar of an actress known to take on a variety of female parts is, of course, the grand Glenn Close.
Not always, she’s played a male-character twice as far as I remember.
She plays her ‘aunty’-part with the grace of ancient aristocracy. -Well, grace by the end of a double-barrelled shotgun at least.- Her white hair contrast beautifully with her twinkling eyes as her character is the very definition of the smartest person in the room.
I’ve seen the actress in period pieces before (e.g. Dangerous Liaisons) and, as she grows older, it seems almost as if the time forms around her characters instead of the other way around. Close’s ‘Auntie’ belongs in the estate of the crooked house. It’s her powerhouse performance that makes the story richer as you see her brooding in the background.
To end this segment with one of my favourite male actors: Julian Sands. After his double turn in the popcorn-pleasing Arachnophobia and Warlock he could never do no wrong by me (though he tried in The Phantom of the opera).
He even appeared in a favourite TV show of mine: Person of Interest. His character vowing to
return to haunt Finch and Reese again. Alas he never did.
Seeing him now as the self-destructing better half of Gillian Anderson’s character is a feast for the eyes. Even though his character is only allowed to play (for most of it) the money hungry former aristocrat he plays it with delicious glee.
But only highlighted three of the actors is cutting it short. All the actors in this movie are a delicious watch. From the little girl, her older brother, the extremely young grandmother all the way to Terence Stamp playing the Scotland Yard copper.
A direct spoiler – I thought it was (in the book at least) Stamp’s character who gave the main character the clue to solving the case: ‘The fact that killers wish to talk about their crime.’. This adaptation didn’t use it which makes the character Stamp is playing a tad ‘cardboard copper’. Nothing his natural charm can’t overcome but still. A bit of a missed opportunity.
The movie did keep the possible inbreeding-element as I will mention below. So the two main clues are still present in this adaptation.
The story and directing Ticking in at almost two hours this movie takes its time for the audience to get to know the characters.
In fact, even though the movie delivers such a strange family of suspects at the basis of the story I found it rather refreshing that, after twenty minutes or so, I knew the various relationships. The movie takes its time for the audience to learn the family dynamic. Who is who and who wants what?
Which; of course leads to the one thing a crime mystery can’t do without: Everybody wants something!
Throughout this lengthy introduction there are also little sneers at the fading British aristocracies in the ‘50s and ‘60s. The fact that ‘Auntie’ hunts moles with a shotgun because the animals are haemophiliacs is a direct reference to the century long inbreeding that went on in the upper-class families.
Then there are the timebased elements that always serve so well for a red-herring or two: communism, mafia, sibling rivalry. It all coats this dark tale with a beguiling fog of secrecy.
But the running time isn’t very long in experience. In fact, the balance of the movie is just right between the main character/detective Charles (Max Irons) questioning suspects and the strange crooked things that go around in that silly old house.
My favourite scene by far is the dinner scene that could have been written by Winston Churchill. Never before have I witnessed such an uncomfortable family gathering wherein insulting one another is treated as an art form.
Well maybe Festen – but let’s keep this article light shall we.
More so the directing underlines the lines spoken. Gilles Paquet-Brenner applies very little tomfoolery with the camera (apart from a nicely dark ballet-scene near the end).
I noticed some nice strange angles the camera uses at times and a rather distorting lens once or twice – but that’s icing on the cake comprised of a solid script and stellar performances. The directing lets the words do most of the work. In this movie the words (in comparison to Paquet-Brenner’s previous movie Dark places) work marvellously.
The one little flaw (maybe)
Which brings me to the one true flaw I could think of. Which is not even a flaw, to be honest. At least it’s a spoiler to the movie so be wary.
The one flaw that I currently think of is a debatable one: the movie ends with a rather sudden anti-climactic ending. The viewer is denied any experience of the other characters after they learned the truth.
I’m on two minds about this one. One the one hand I would like to see the dramatic effect on the various character. Whilst, on the other, I can accept the choice. In fact, we (the audience) don’t need any further exploration. Our instincts and mental narrative will fill in what happens next.
So this is nicely debatable as an anti-climactic sudden ending needs to be.
Conclusion
If you wish to see Agatha Christie’s darkest novel done right look no further than Crooked house. This is the prime example of a perfect adaptation. Maybe some people won’t like the story – that’s Christie’s fault not the moviemakers. Crooked house singlehandedly restored my fate in book-adaptations for the next year. I really enjoyed it a lot!
Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh) is travelling to London by the luxurious train: the orient express. Then one night one the of the passengers is murdered right under his very nose well groomed moustache. Who is the culprit? Who of the twelve passengers on board had means, motive and opportunity? It’s up to the Belgian sleuth to figure out.
From all of Agatha Christie’s books ‘Murder on the orient express’ has been turned into a movie quite a lot of times.
Only losing to ‘And then there were none’ – which was made six times so far.
There is the famous 1974-version with Albert Finney. The TV-version with the amazing David Suchet in his career defining role. And the little known (but rather interesting actually) modernized version that has Alfred Molina as the Belgian sleuth.
There’s also a (haven’t seen it yet) Japanese version and a (terrible) videogame so there’s that.
So for Kenneth Branagh’s version things had to be a bit different this time around lest he’d be accused of ‘rehashing’. Well…in the safe hands of the Shakespearean theatre buff Branagh there are a lot of things that go right in this particular outing. But, alas, to me this version of Murder on the orient express also falls prey to the preferences of the director that don’t always work for me. Let’s start with the positive: the moustache.
There are long sweeping shots- with never a ‘celeb’ out of sight - at the start of the movie that introduces all the characters. One shot in peculiar has a movie-buff like me giggling: “There’s Dafoe, there’s Dench, there’s Cruz…” The camera picks up on them in the background without focussing on them which sells the idea of an ensemble movie.
Another great example of a shot is the fact that the camera (in the first two investigative scenes) never enters the compartment of the murder victim. The camera hovers above. During the discovery of the body outside of the compartment. At the investigation of the body well above so the audience can’t make out any details.
And then of course there are the final ‘last supper shot’ and the ‘point-of-view-shot’ from the trailer which thankfully made it into the movie.
So if you know the story by heart then this version of ‘Murder…’ has more than enough cinematic tricks up its sleeve to keep you interested. And that’s even before you get introduced to the powerhouse actors Brannagh has managed to acquire.
The small shoes – Acting Branagh as Poirot first. Branagh’s Poirot is actually rather pleasing. True, he fails miserably at the ‘egg-shaped head’ of the Belgium detective. But the wonderful moustache and the twinkle in his eyes make up all the better for it. I did however wonder about –at the movie progressed- the ‘activeness’ this rendition of the famous sleuth showcases.
Poirot isn’t a fighting man. In fact, early in the movie you see Poirot bending down to feel the wind blowing underneath a door. Even that’s not Poirot. That’s not the man who walks on painfully small shoes because they look better on him.
So Branagh’s Poirot is a mixed bag for me. He looks and acts the character when he’s speaking to a suspect. But whenever he’s investigating or (dear me) fighting he’s as far removed as Margaret Rutherford was as Miss Marple.
Now in a play that has twelve suspects to be interviewed you can only give so much screen time to each. In short: you are going to get people with minor parts. Derek Jacobi, for instance, only has a three minute scene to leave his mark. But, that’s all an actor of his stature needs. He sits down, plays his part beautifully and leaves.
Each and every actor is perfectly devoted to his/her part: Ridley, Jacobi, Cruz, Dafoe, Depp at his vilest (always great). With, of course, Michelle Pfeiffer standing out as the modern day Lauren Bacall.
With Cruz who has the greatest shoes to fill: Ingrid Bergman's Oscar winning performance.
Personally I wish to tip my hat to Josh Gad. I always enjoy the actor. His role in 21 was nerdy and fun and he never really stopped playing that character-but with a twist. Each time he gives you exactly what you expect but takes it a small step further.
He certainly was the best thing in Beauty and the beast (That and the snowball flooring Belle – sorry I’m a sucker for slapstick comedy).
The accent: music
The music by Patrick Doyle, then, is great in this outing. But I do miss the train element that worked so well in the score of the 1974-version or other ‘train movies’ like The first great train robbery.
The score contains three main tracks (ha!) from Mediterranean, to bombastic to dramatic small. It is never overtaking like a John Williams score can be. Rather it makes its presence known at those little moments of silence whenever the movie demands it.
The (titanium?) cane: What I disliked.
However, there are a few things that I disliked in this version.
For starters casting Leslie Odom Jr. as the doctor. This is a period piece so, due to this casting-choice, racism is going to be part of the story. The problem, however, is that it doesn’t have to be. If the movie decided on a Caucasian actor for the part (the Sean Connery part in the 1974-version) it wouldn’t have to sidetrack by answering questions how a Afro-American man got a degree in Medicine.
This is a two-part critique I always have with Branaghs later movies: he makes it too difficult on himself by including additional elements or he focuses too much on subtext. Let’s start with the latter.
Not Dead again mind you. That movie is practically perfect in every way (LINK)!
Subtext.
His version of Sleuth, for instance, shifted focus on the underlining homosexual tension between the two main characters. True, this tension is right there in the original play but it’s not the most important thing –which is two men trying to outsmart each other.
In ‘Murder…’ the same happens with the final choice Poirot gives the suspects. Yes, the deeply religious Poirot does –deep down inside- want honest justice for crimes committed. He wants to be judge and executioner. But he never gives in until the very end of his life. So by highlighting the subtext Branagh’s movie makes Poirot far more vengeful already than the path he is travelling at.
Additional elements. ‘Murder…’ has two big action sequences the movie could have done without. True, they aren’t very annoying if not for the fact that the ‘walking penguin’ which is Poirot suddenly becomes a bit of an action star.
But what ‘annoyed’ (for want of a better word) me more were the two additional ‘attack’-scenes included (the knife and the gun). Those aren’t in the book and rather overcomplicate an already complicated plot.
So that’s my issue with this rendition of ‘Murder…’ There are things added that didn’t need to be added. Instead this movie could have been even better with more time spent on the suspects. I would’ve loved an additional three minutes of Jacobi or Cruz.
Madame et monsieur
2017’s re-adaptation of Murder on the Orient express works and fails evenly. The characters are well acted and the style of directing is a feast for the eyes. However, the plot muddles with unnecessary additions and a focus on subtext.
Personally I would have preferred the exact same script of the 1974-version with Branagh’s style of directing and (maybe) cast. Now I only got half of the perfect Agatha Christie retelling.
But, then again, after two great versions of the ‘train murder’ it was a hard act to follow. Perhaps Brannagh will find more solid ground on a boating trip down the Nile.
One of the perks of
watching a lot of movies is that you see screenwriters getting more and more
creative as time goes on. Writers always try to come up with something that
hasn’t been attempted/done before. And nowhere has this been more apparent than
in the morbid niche of movie storytelling that is: the death scene.
I must have seen
thousands of people meet their maker on the silver screen during my short life
on this earth. Explosions, gunshots, you name it. But there are far more
creative ways to kill a human –as movies tell us.
So here I wish to have
a little (morbid) quiz. I state ten causes of death and in the spoiler tag
below it is the movie it came from. See how many you get.
Theme: chest pains.
This time ‘round I wanted to focus on where certain objects hit. My choice: to the chest. So here are ten unfortunates who took something to the chest that didn’t agree with them.
1. Death by stalactite to the chest.
Cliffhanger.
2. Death by a scissor sculpture (to the chest).
Dead again.
3. Death by an atomic bomb (to the chest).
Broken arrow.
4. Death by a VX rocket (to the chest).
The rock.
5. Death by an airplane engine (to the chest).
Donnie Darko.
6. Death by pool cue (to the chest).
From dusk till dawn.
7. Death by a giant bear-trap (to the chest).
Ravenous.
8. Death by satellite dish (to the chest).
Goldeneye.
9. Death by barb wire (to the chest).
Final destination 2.
10. Death by arms being bitten off by a (gnarly)…chest.
All is not quiet in
Hawkins Indiana. There are old wounds that just refuse to close. Will tries to
cope with his new existence as ‘the boy who lived’/’zombieboy’. Mike misses his
friend Eleven with every breath he takes and then there’s the rip in the continuum
down in Hawkins lab.
When, at Halloween,
Sheriff Hopper is asked to investigate a peculiar pumpkin problem it starts off
a chain of events that reopens the old wounds and creates many new ones.
Stranger Things is
back! If there’s one thing the creators of the show (The Duffer brothers) knew
from the get go was that their new outing wouldn’t be ‘as fresh’ as last year’s
sleeper hit. But to counter this the creators filled season 2 to the brim with
nods to famous 80s sequels, a bigger budget, fan-service and a satisfying
continuation on the characters we love. This season wears its ‘2’ with pride and
rightfully so.
This season is just as delicious to watch as the season
previous. It’s nostalgia with great characters and a healthy dose of pure
horror sprinkled on top. But, to be honest, there are a few small tears here
and there (in the fabric of time and space) that make this season slightly less
perfect. I’ll get to that.
MadMax – (New) adult characters
The first thing I noticed as I binge-watched the show (3:00
AM!) was that the titles were different than what we (the audience) were teased
last year. The first episode is still called MadMax, but the rest are different.
I don’t know what went on in the creative process. But, then again, ‘what’s in
a name’.
Anyway I decided to use the ‘original’ teased titles as a
coat rack to hang my article on. Beginning with MadMax or: (New) adult characters.
The reason why the first season worked so well was because
the characters were all so very well written. Especially Winona Ryder was a
hoot as Joyce Byers; the ultimate lioness of a mother willing to do anything to
protect her cub. In that season she came up with a clever scheme to communicate
with her lost son. This season showcases her intelligence yet again as a woman
who has, by now, fully accepted the stranger things going on in her hometown.
It’s this acceptance and her blind love for (and trust in) her child that makes
her one of the favourite characters in the show.
That and the fact that she can be, at times, mad as a
hatter. This is a hilarious overprotective woman who isn’t afraid to break her
house down if it would save her son. It’s a logical madness that, at first
glance, might look like a weakness but instead makes the Joyce character
richer.
Then there’s Bob (Sean Astin). I liked Bob. But was for a
while afraid that good Bob might be a bad Bob.
I like saying the name: Bob!
Even though he’s
mainly written in the show as for his BASIC-skill set -and his The Goonies fame- he does bring a nice
stability to the Byers family. He’s the new goofy normality that this
dysfunctional family is striving for. Given the fact that Sean Astin has
cemented himself in Hollywood as the go to nice guy it’s nice to see him charm
his way through the episodes. His character’s love for Joyce is real and he really is trying to connect to the boys. Like Sherriff Hopper he is a man willing
to do anything to protect and serve.
A much better part than what the actor got handed in The
Strain.
This brings us to the villain of the piece: Dr. Owens (Paul
Reiser) of Aliens-fame. Who, in fact, isn’t a villain at all. In the character’s own words
(paraphrasing):”I’m the schmuck people brought in the fix the mess.”
Yes, he works for the ‘dark side’. But his morality is
straight as an arrow. He is a great antidote to last year’s Dr. Brenner; because
he's the nicest 'villain' ever. This is, I consider, a great move on the creators’
part. We already had one big human villain in the show, why would we need
another one?
Nerdy me, by the way, loved the final Lab-showdown for the
character because it kept reminding me of this little YouTube sci-fi gem: the
tower. Watch this one, it’s great!
One bad beat, though, are Mike’s mom and dad. They take quite
a step backwards this season. Last year Mike’s mother was the pillar of
stability in the Wheeler household. When Mike thought Will was dead he went to
his caring mother to cry. This season she comes across as a ‘desperate
housewife’. Like the character has been turned upside down.
The Boy Who Came Back
to Life – (New) child characters
Another smart move the creators made this season was
changing the spotlight of the characters. In the first season it was Mike (Finn
Wolfhard) and Eleven’s (Millie Bobby Brown) show. Will (Noah Schnapp) was
missing most of the time and Dustin (Gaten Matarazzo) and Lucas (Caleb
McLaughlin) were in the background doing their thing. This season the character
focus has been turned ‘upside down’ (sorry for the pun).
For a short while it
is suspected that this season is going to be all Will. And certainly the actor
gets a lot more to do this season. He’s an emotional wreck trying to cope with
the darkness that’s hunting him. Plus he, once again, is allowed to showcase
his intelligence to his mother. He certainly is Will the wise! But in the end,
without spoiling too much, when darkness engulfs him the focus remains steadily
on Dustin, Lucas and the new girl in town Max (Sadie Sink).
I did get my wish though: evil Will. Awesome!
It’s always difficult to include a new character in a
beloved show. And, I must admit, it took me a while to warm up to Max. The
reason for this is actually spotlighted in the show itself as Mike tells her
(paraphrasing): "I'm the Paladin, Will is the Cleric, Dustin the Bard,
Lucas the Ranger and Eleven the Mage." There’s no real reason to have the
girl around (apart from the hilarious hormones-related scenes for Dustin and Lucas).
Most of the time she’s in the background reacting to what’s happening.
This has
partly to do with the fact that it takes a while before the audience learns the
truth about her and her brother. And when ‘we’ do it turns out that she isn’t
part of the whole mystery (yet).
That doesn’t make me dislike her. In fact the actress plays
her part beautifully. It’s just that her part, for now, only functions to flesh
out the Lucas and Dustin parts.
Lucas and Dustin then are the true main characters of this
season. Lucas has a loving family (‘in which mom is always right’) with an
annoying sister to boot. And Dustin has a cat lady for a mother (of course he
does) and a penchant for creepy animals and swearwords.
SPOILER: As in the first season I like the logic in this
show. It isn't Will's thrown up slug that happens to happen upon Dustin's
dustbin. No there are more. It's like putting some logic to a ‘leap in logic’
audience members have grown accustomed to.
Both boys shine in their increased roles. Especially McLaughin’s
Lucas makes up for lost character development that was lacking last season. And
Matarazzo’s Dustin just keeps on being hilarious – but with a real heart as is
shown in the last ten minutes of the season.
The Pumpkin Patch –
The eleven episode
Eleven or Jane, was left out for most of this season. A
snippet here and there of her sulking in her cabin. With one delicious
puberty-fuelled outburst of jealousy.
There are several things to keep in mind when writing a
character like Eleven. For starters her powers need to be contained. You can
never have a superhero who’s too powerful. That’s why Superman has his
kryptonite. So that’s one of the reasons why Eleven had to be locked away most
of the season.
Second, with such a
mystery shrouded character, you’d want to explore her past a bit. But by doing
that there’s always a danger of hurting the other characters.
Supposedly Mike was there when Eleven visited her ‘mama’.
The writers have to incorporate his character’s reaction to what he learns
there. And maybe that doesn’t work in the long run.
So by taking Eleven away from Hawkins the show creates a
nice standalone episode that either works for the overall show or can be
discarded: a safe bet. It might feel a bit out of place in the grand scheme of things.
But then, again, her character needs it.
Kali/eight (Linnea Berthelsen), in this episode, is, to me,
a good addition to the Eleven-mythology. This revenge-driven (let’s be honest)
psychopath serves in the overall storyline of Eleven as both an expansion as a
setting of borders (quite literally really). Eleven learns that she’s not
alone. Yet she also accepts her goodness and love for those people who helped
her a year back.
This episode is a nice change from the rural American style
that is Stranger Things. Plus it
allowed the creators to do one thing which every sequel-maker wants to play
around with: bring a 80s city to life due to a bigger budget.
The Palace – Sequel
galore
As I said in the opening this season of Stranger Things wears it’s ‘2’ with pride.
Just remember the ‘rules of the sequel’ from Scream 2:
The body count is always bigger.
The death scenes are always much more elaborate,
with more blood and gore.
Never, ever, under any circumstances assume the
killer is dead.
All this happens in Stranger
Things 2. But there’s more.
There are, for instance, several references to Indiana Jones and the temple of Doom.
Blocks under a child’s feet to drive a car. Hopper picking up his hat from the
ground. And, of course, Nancy and Jonathan’s internal discussion at the
‘conspiracy theorists house’.
I like the couple very much. But, like last season, their
storyline (Barb) is a bit detached from the rest of the show.
This brings me to the other ‘sequel’ thing I wish to
highlight here: fans!
I’ve been reading on fan culture for years now (Henry Jenkins’
Textual Poachers and Matt Hill’s Fan cultures are the cornerstone books
on fan research). And if there’s one thing that’s always a bit murky is the
question if ‘whether or not a creator should give the fan what he/she wants?’.
The will-they-won’t-they-issue.
Should the creator hold off on the payoff of letting the
hero and heroine get together or not? Sometimes it works (e.g. Bones). Sometimes it doesn’t (e.g. Glee) or it’s too late (e.g. Frasier). That’s one of the ways of
looking at why Eleven was in her cabin most of this season. Because the payoff
between her and Mike already happened – they are in (childish) love.
The conspiracy theorist Murray Bauman (a hilarious part by
Brett Gelman) takes this issue head on. In a meta-sense he explains the problem
of being a fan: ‘you want it to happen, whilst, at the same time you don’t’.
It’s like postponing desert – the best part of a meal.
The inclusion of this scene makes Stranger Things 2 as a sequel even richer. It knows what it is
(like Mike explaining Max the function of each member of the group). It knows
the sequel tropes it’s dancing to. So why not highlight it? Like nostalgia. That’s
why the show indulges in those hilarious ‘photo moments’. And that’s certainly
why one of the episodes ends with the Ghostbusters
song. That’s what the fans want – so give it to them! But don’t let them forget
that –as a group of philosophers once said: ‘you can’t always get what you
want!’
The Pollywog – Some
critiques
Directing-wise this season is as solid as the first. But
with the twist that –apart from the increased budget for lavish special
effects- there is a sense of some fun with the camera. There’s a great long
take shot at the Halloween party (ever since
Goodfellas that’s a thing – long takes and social gatherings). And there’s
a wonderful rotating shot of Sherriff Hopper in the tunnel.
I don't know; I'm a sucker for those claustrophobic
backlit shots.
It’s only the flow of the story that feels a bit off this
time ‘round.
As I said before it took (quite) a while before Mike and Eleven
got together again (for various reasons). But then there’s Kali’s appearance
in the opening and the way she’s ‘forgotten’ for the next six episodes. Or the
long time before the show allowed some character development for Billy (Dacre
Montgomery). I think these things should have been shifted.
I liked that scene of Billy with his father. Just simple
little 'names' like faggot. You don't say that to your son no matter how out of
line he is! So just this particular swearword made me dislike the father with a
vengeance. Quite the achievement for the singular scene he was in. Having said
that, even though I understand the evil stepbrother better doesn't mean that I
like him. Him, picking on little girls. Slamming a plate against poor Steve's
head in (what he intended to be) a honest fistfight. Tsk tsk.
Billy, for me stayed an evil no-good bastard
because his character development came too late. Kali, I almost forgot about
until Eleven visited the big city.
Then there’s the general mystery of the show which starts a
bit late as well. In this season there isn’t a missing boy-case in the very
first episode. It takes a while to get started. I’m on two minds about this
one. I liked the little tickle here and there before the season shifted in top
gear at the Mew Mew-moment. But maybe
it should have happened sooner.
By the way: putting a kid under, out again and under
again. I'm not an anaesthetist and neither are any of the characters. But, this
is one of those tropes that just keep on giving.
A final scriptural issue I have with this season of Stranger Things is the last episode. It contained some rather convenient writing on the Steve part just to
keep his character involved. A problem derived from too many (fan favourite) characters
to juggle near the end. But, having said that, -as with the rest of the show-
the show does deal with this issue with such charm that it’s (almost) easily
forgiven.
The Secret Cabin –
Spoiler galore.
Alright, this is the paragraph to skip if you do not wish to
be spoiled. Final warning!
So now with the portal closed all seems quiet in the little
town of Hawkins. In fact, the story has been wrapped up so nicely with a string
and a bow (and two kisses this time –again the number ‘2’) that it is safe to
assume that next year something cataclysmically has to happen to get everybody
involved once again. At least there are some parts left out in the open: Will
Dustin finally get a girlfriend? Will Steve get a girlfriend?
I'm still hoping for some residue superpower residing in
Will. We've had a somewhat evil Will which was great. But, now I want to see
him truly be part of the group instead of the victim. Something like a scene in
the upside down in which Will goes: "Don't worry guys...been here before.
I got this!” Who knows; maybe he became immune to the upside-down gooey.
Anyway, that would mean that one of the other boys might
become a victim next year. My guess is Dustin and the stuff he inhaled in the
tunnel.
Other loose strands are off course the evil stepbrother
Billy with his terribly unbuttoned shirt (and give him a razor please). And the
whereabouts of Dr. Brenner/ ’Papa’.
I said from the get go that he isn't dead yet. ‘Big bad’s
don’t die that easily. Having said that I do now fear for dear Dr. Owens’s life. A
tried and tested method of re-introducing the big bad: let him kill his
replacement.
Then of course there is Kali/eight and her trigger-happy
friends and the whole back-story they bring in regards to Eleven’s mother. I
would like to see them return.
The Brain – The map
The map. The most popular article I posted on this silly
blog of mine.
I intend to continue on it. And thank goodness Stranger Things season 2 helped me out.
There are three distinct moments in the season that a map of Hawkins is
shown.So that’s going to take some prt
scr-ing. Then there’s a map of (at least three floors) of Hawkins laboratory
and a whole map of the tunnel system (even though that one is going to be
immensely complex to draw out).
Then there are the new locations like the arcade, the three
pumpkin farms (each with names or their owners)
Great to see Matty Cardarople. I liked him in Jurassic World and A series of unfortunate events. However, he does only play one kind
of character. He's good at it, no worries there. But if he's going to be a
recurring character next season he needs some development.
and of course the verbal references to locations. Places
like ‘lover’s lane’. Some lakes. The fact that Max lives in a poor street while
she goes trick-or-treating in ‘rich town’. The fact that the school is about a
mile west (or east) from Eleven’s cabin. The car graveyard now resides on top
of a hill south of Hawkins on walking distance to the lab. Et cetera.
One little issue I did find with my map is the space
between the lab and Will's house. In season one Will was caught because he
lives close to the lab. You could walk it.
Now the sheriff and Eleven drive for a good 10-15 minutes to
get there. Maybe there is some artistic freedom going on here?
I’m going to have some fun!
The Lost Brother – Conclusion
This episode has now been renamed The gate – talk about a
80s title.
Stranger Things 2
is a blast for everyone who liked the first season. It’s more of the same with
a bigger budget and far more horror. It’s like this season wants to remind its
audience that this season is grander than we ever seen before like a sequel
should.
Each and every member of the cast is devoted to bringing you
the best time in Hawkins you could ever wish for. Some major players of the
first season might take a step back from the spotlight to let others shine. But
by doing that the series allows for a further exploration of the stranger
things going on in that little 80s town of America. To quote Dustin:
“Prrrrrrrrrrrrr!”
