Category: Television

By on

By the time I finish writing this blog, I might have changed my mind but right now I have to say Peter Falk as Columbo is my favorite television character. The show dates from the 1970’s and has aged surprisingly well. Unlike most detective shows where the trick is to figure out who the murderer is, the audience knows who the murderer is but how Columbo figures out who the murderer is.

The murderer is almost always some rich and powerful person who thinks they are smarter than the bumbling appearing Columbo who stumbles into their lives . Because they think they are smarter than Columbo, they fall into his trap of giving too much information that they inadvertently give away important details, seemingly innocuous information, that seals their fate later in the show.

Falk and the writers gives Columbo an array of distinctive quirks. His rumbled rain coat that he is always wearing and he can’t bring himself to rid himself of even after his wife buys him a snazzy new one, his ever present cigar, his scratching head when confused, his car — a barely functional vintage Peugeot convertible, his sad sack and barely functional pet dog, his never on screen wife who he calls Mrs. Columbo and who is full of good advice, and his saying “just one more thing” as he his leaving the suspect which tricks a usually exasperated person into giving some seemingly unimportant detail that really is at the heart of what Columbo is looking for.

You can’t help but root for Columbo as he manages to manipulate these arrogant assholes into prison. He plays into their egos, letting them think he is a bumbler while finding out everything he needs to know. Part of Falk’s charm is he manages to ingratiate his suspects into helping him and working with him to help him catch the killer while actually setting a trap for the unsuspecting guilty party. It is particularly fun when the suspect catches on to Columbo’s game but have gone too far to save themselves from falling into one of his traps. Their disdain for him throughout the show and their disbelief that this idiot outwitted them is the best revenge.

So if you are looking for a good detective show and you have exhausted everything you know, you might revisit Columbo as I think you will find it a rewarding experience.

By on

Ten years or so back, I stopped watching movies set in Concentration Camps. I got the point even before I began watching the movie — concentration camps were horrible places, human beings can do horrible things and we can never let this happen again. I agree. If I never watch another movie about Concentration Camps, I will still remember this. It is permanently lodged in my memory as few other things are. Watching a new Concentration Camp movie isn’t going to change anything.

So what if a new Concentration Camp comes along that surpasses all other Concentration Camp movies in artistic merit, in messaging, in production values, in acting — shouldn’t I see the movie for the art? Maybe, but I don’t want to. That’s all I can say. I don’t want to. I feel like I am wasting my time seeing an excellent rendition of something I already am convinced was horrible. Just because something is done well, doesn’t mean I need to watch it. I am not required to see all good art. More importantly, it just depresses me. Why put myself through that even if it is great art?

I once slipped and started watching The Boy in the Striped Pajamas because everyone was raving about it. The premise of the movie is that the German son of the Concentration Camp Commander befriends a Jewish boy through the fence of the camp. The fence is no match for the industrious German boy who soon visits the Jewish boy in the camp. I am betting that most of you can see where this movie is going. Tragedy. I stopped watching when I figured out where this story was going. What point was there in seeing the end? So I can see a well done depiction of a horror that I have seen many times before? How was this going to make my life any better?

This is how I feel about the recent television series Dahmer. I have very few complaints about the series. There is great acting, great production values, and an interesting story. Yet I hated almost every great minute of it. Dahmer, as portrayed by Evan Peters, is an inarticulate loner with an unchecked alcohol problem who tries, always unsuccessfully, to make friends. He has an early fascination with taxidermy which may lead him to his future murderous actions. He stumbles into his first killings but, after these “accidental” murders, he realizes that killing and cannibalism are the only things that satisfies his sexual urges and thus begins his descent into serial killing.

There are 10 episodes in the series which easily could have been cut down to 3 to 5. Yet, the movie goes on and on showing him preying on his victims, his family complaining about how strange he acts and why doesn’t he behave like a regular person, his neighbors complaining about his strange behavior and meeting with police indifference to this strange man and his strange behavior. Yes, it’s well done. So what? Dahmer is difficult person to connect with so, despite all of the episodes, his motives are still baffling at the end. He is a seemingly bland ordinary person who, for no apparent reason, descended into Hell and brought every person he meets into Hell with him. There is no suspense, no identification with him as person, and no hope that anyone could ever stop future serial killers from slaughtering their victims.

And, because there are 10 episodes to fill, the producers and director keep showing the same terrible situations over and over again. But, just in case you missed it or didn’t understand it before, the series gives the audience a fairly comprehensive accounting of what a monster Dahmer was. If you need this confirmation, by all means, see Dahmer; otherwise try to find some other well done television show, or book, or painting that enlightens you or entertains you or makes you look at life in a different way because Dahmer is a well done bummer.

Most importantly, always remember, you don’t have to see something because it is good.

By on

Netflix created a small controversy when it tagged Dahmer as LGBTQ television series. Some in the Gay leadership felt that Dahmer was really about a serial killer who preyed on Gay men. That the murderer was also Gay is irrelevant because the story is about a serial killer and not reflective of Gay life. The bigger concern is that by labeling Dahmer with the LGBTQ tag that Netflix is portraying Gay life in a negative manner. How, really? Do they think that straight people will believe that Jeffrey Dahmer is the role model for all gay men? And Dahmer is, in fact, gay. This is why this tempest in a tea cup has bothered me. Do you only get the LGBTQ label if you show positive portrayals of gay people? This doesn’t seem possible because sometimes Gay people do terrible things. More importantly, sometimes these terrible actions are directly related to the person being Gay.

Then isn’t Dahmer is a good example of that? Could some ambiguous feelings about being gay have contributed to his actions? I would think likely and certainly worth exploring. So, why would a LGBTQ labeling be wrong? Does every show labeled as LGBTQ have to have a positive depiction of Gay life? Where does one draw the line? Would showing a Gay person in depression or with suicidal thoughts risk the same kind of scrutiny as Dahmer? While it would be very nice to only have heroic people in whatever group you are talking about, it is very unlikely. All groups have all types of people even serial killers.

This controversy reminds me of another one involving the movie Cruising. Gay activists in 1979 tried to shut down the making of this movie because of its depiction of the gays into leather and sadomasochism They were afraid that the heterosexual community who, at the time, had very little contact with the gay community would see this depiction of promiscuous sadomasochistic sex play as representative of the whole gay community instead of it being about a small subset of gay people. Instead of just saying no comment and moving onto more important matters, they tried the movie made. In the meantime, these leaders had no problem dissing a significant group of gay men because they failed to represent the perfect gay image. The fact is that some Gay men like S/M, they like it so much that they risk going home with strangers who are potentially dangerous.

Indeed this is part of what Dahmer is showing. Is the allure of a one night stand worth more than the dangers of choosing a killer? I would venture to say that most Gay men have gone home with a stranger. I know I have. That is a very real part of most gay men’s lives which actually may be more beneficial to the average gay than some heroic image guy. These critics want straights to see the white middle-class monogamous couple with 2 children and a dog. It is impossible for one movie to show the entirety of gay life. Some movies will be darker than other movies. These movies may be difficult to watch because they show Gay people engaging in self-destructive or harmful ways. Dahmer happened, and it happened within the gay community. We will just have to leave it up to good judgement of straight people that Dahmer is not your typical gay man.

****Corrected on 10/7/22, 2 paragraph, changed very likely to very unlikely.

By on

A year or so ago, my partner and I began to notice that when night scenes in television shows were too dark for us. Not dark in the mood sense but in the light sense. We would see absolutely nothing for minutes at a time. I mean maybe the whites of the person’s eyes and that is it. At first, I thought it was an isolated incident. The production budget was too small to cover the electric bill. But this year we began to notice that night scenes in a number of high budget television shows (Ozark, Midnight Mass, Archieve 81, Chapelwaite) would plunge us into complete darkness. The screen would be black with only the sound to keep the story going as we strained to see what was going on in the shadows.

I noticed that this problem is restricted to movies and television shows made in the past few years. Old movies are lit in such a way that I know that the scene is happening at night while also allowing me to see the action in the movie. I find this is preferable to me asking my partner, “What are they doing now? Can you see whatever it is that is scaring the shit out of the actor?” I am guessing that the problem is that modern cameras are so sophisticated that directors want the authenticity of the actual darkness to set the mood they are trying to create. They think that everyone can see all the dark details on the screen. I can’t. But I sure would like to.

By on

A scene in a Succession episode jarred me the other night. Succession is intelligent, witty, and funny television. I enjoy it immensely. In this particular scene (see link to scene below), however, the writers are trying too hard to show their intelligence and I came away annoyed with them instead. The show would have us believe that gruff self-made billionaire Logan Roy would use the word fungible while having conversation with someone he is incredibly angry with.

It struck me as out of sync with his character and a distraction from the plot. It didn’t help me that I had to look up the word to make sure I understood it correctly. Sometimes using big, unknown words is unavoidable and important for the plot. If it seems right, then I am all for using big words that may be unknown to me. In this scene, it seems completely gratuitous. Thrown in to the episode simply as evidence on how smart the show actually is. It was jarring particularly since the character who says it is more know for his profanity laced insults than using 50 cent words. I might believe him saying you are a dime a dozen or I can hire a recent college graduate off the streets who can do the job as good as you. But fungible never.

Worse still, it felt like contempt. Yes, we are using the word fungible. If you don’t know the meaning of the word, then look it up. We are not here to make it easy for you.

What concerns me is that it reveals just the elite condescension that right wing apologists complain about. It is unnecessary and unhelpful. Succession is great at showing the moral rot of the wealthy capitalists who run the world economy but, unintentionally, it shows the contempt that the media elites have for their own audience. This might cause some viewers to determine that these media elites are fungible with the capitalist elites so why exchange a new boss that is just as bad as the old boss.

Link to Fungible Comment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4ByzXJHDJ4