![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
seekingferret- I saw John Carter Saturday night with little brother. The consensus: It was a fun, super racist movie. The levels of Civil War apology they took us through were kind of impressive. But hell, it's Burroughs. It's a beautiful fantasy strangely and powerfully moored in 19th century realities. It is what I expected it would be, and I had a good enough time at the movie.
- I finished A Game of Thrones, the first book, on Sunday. The consensus: Mayyyyybe I'll read more eventually. I could pick apart things I didn't like, I could complain more generally about some bigger structural deficiencies, but by the by it's pretty decent fantasy despite its flaws. I like the Starks a lot, all of them, and I thought spending time reading about them was enjoyable even though I didn't like much of the megaplot and thought the story was badly balanced.
Okay, I guess I'll say a little more. I liked that Martin was not awarding the Starks the side of good, even though they're the POV characters. I liked that there is some legitimacy behind the Lannisters' claim of the throne, and some legitimacy behind Stannis, and even a reasonable if reaching argument for Renly. And I like that Daenerys is set up as a sort of counterweight to the manipulations in Westeros. But there's not enough commitment to this. For all that Martin set out to subvert the linear narrative that anoints a true King, he spends a lot too much time with Starks and not enough time with Targaryens.
And I'll tell you why, too. Martin is committed to subverting the true King narrative, but he's more committed to simulating the fog of war. Constantly, despite POV shifts that ought to give the reader a clearer picture of what's happening in Westeros, he ends scenes before the key moment happens. The reader doesn't know for fifty pages if Ned's been captured or killed. And that's well and good, but it forces him to compromise on the true King subversion, because he can't spend enough time with the Targaryens to make you understand their sense of rightness without revealing too much that he wants to keep hidden until later. And Stannis, who ought to be a major force in confusing the true King narrative, is kept out of GoT altogether because Martin wants whatever he's doing on Dragonstone to remain mysterious. It's an interesting compromise, and not one I really agree with. Too often I could sense things he was trying to do that didn't feel fully sketched out, because he was straining to avoid telling me too much.
-I finished season 1 of Danger 5, the 60s spy/WWII movie pastiche comedy about killing Hitler that has been my favorite thing ever since I learned about it. My DVD of Season 1 is in the mail, but I couldn't wait for it to arrive from Australia so I torrented it. It is the best thing ever. I have three favorite episodes, and the season only has six episodes. But how could I choose between the Nazi dinosaur episode, the Nazi mecha episode, and the episode where Rommel has a tank plated in gold? Seriously, how could I choose? There are sequences in this show where I don't stop laughing from one joke before the next joke hits for about five or six jokes in a row.
The season finale, "Final Victory", may be a more sublime subversion of the historical record than the theater scene in Inglourious Basterds. Tarantino shows, I wrote, that it's okay to laugh at Hitler and the Nazis, because they are base, foul, vile monsters. But Danger 5 shows that it's okay to laugh and laugh and laugh, but it also, because of its broader, more spacious perspective, slots Hitler's brutality and inhumanity onto a spectrum of attitudes that make him easier to comprehend. In some ways, Carmine Russo's oafish, venial, carnal Hitler is more recognizably human than any "serious" attempt to actually treat with Hitler as a person. That humanity leads to some oddly moving moments, as when he refuses to let Himmler kill Jackson and Ilsa because they have been interrupting HIS plans and HE deserves to exact revenge on them. Meanwhile, Jackson and Ilsa have been too focused on their petty jealousies to spend any time thinking about the monstrosity of Himmler's plan- which as I recall, the team never actually gets around to foiling. Hitler's monstrosity compares to the pettiness of the Danger 5 team. Hitler is unmistakably the villain- this is not, unlike Archer, a story where the 'good guys' are secretly worse than the 'bad guys'. But the difference between Hitler and the Danger 5 time is the level of depravity, not some fundamental difference in human nature. And I find something moving and reassuring about that.
And this complements the subversion of femininity the Ilsa/Claire dynamic reveals. Ilsa is repeatedly shown to be more moral than Claire, despite her rejection of anything resembling conventional relationship logic. More moral because she understands the stakes at hand and is willing to do anything to get her job done, because Hitler absolutely needs to be stopped, but also more moral because she is honest about her desires and her pursuit of those desires. Claire's chastity is mocked but not dismissed by the show (it is a vital antidote to Tucker's buttoned up Anglo-Saxon chauvinism), but it is shown to be hypocritical and suppositious. In one of the show's weirdly emotional sight-gags, Ilsa is transformed by Hitler's Aryan sex magic into a blonde, blue-eyed sex kitten, to her utter horror. Only "corrupted" Swiss blood can heal her of this dangerous infirmity and restore her to her position in opposition of Claire, and by perverse extension, Hitler.
... None of this made sense. People, watch Danger 5 so I can discuss it and have people check my weirder thoughts about this show.
- I finished A Game of Thrones, the first book, on Sunday. The consensus: Mayyyyybe I'll read more eventually. I could pick apart things I didn't like, I could complain more generally about some bigger structural deficiencies, but by the by it's pretty decent fantasy despite its flaws. I like the Starks a lot, all of them, and I thought spending time reading about them was enjoyable even though I didn't like much of the megaplot and thought the story was badly balanced.
Okay, I guess I'll say a little more. I liked that Martin was not awarding the Starks the side of good, even though they're the POV characters. I liked that there is some legitimacy behind the Lannisters' claim of the throne, and some legitimacy behind Stannis, and even a reasonable if reaching argument for Renly. And I like that Daenerys is set up as a sort of counterweight to the manipulations in Westeros. But there's not enough commitment to this. For all that Martin set out to subvert the linear narrative that anoints a true King, he spends a lot too much time with Starks and not enough time with Targaryens.
And I'll tell you why, too. Martin is committed to subverting the true King narrative, but he's more committed to simulating the fog of war. Constantly, despite POV shifts that ought to give the reader a clearer picture of what's happening in Westeros, he ends scenes before the key moment happens. The reader doesn't know for fifty pages if Ned's been captured or killed. And that's well and good, but it forces him to compromise on the true King subversion, because he can't spend enough time with the Targaryens to make you understand their sense of rightness without revealing too much that he wants to keep hidden until later. And Stannis, who ought to be a major force in confusing the true King narrative, is kept out of GoT altogether because Martin wants whatever he's doing on Dragonstone to remain mysterious. It's an interesting compromise, and not one I really agree with. Too often I could sense things he was trying to do that didn't feel fully sketched out, because he was straining to avoid telling me too much.
-I finished season 1 of Danger 5, the 60s spy/WWII movie pastiche comedy about killing Hitler that has been my favorite thing ever since I learned about it. My DVD of Season 1 is in the mail, but I couldn't wait for it to arrive from Australia so I torrented it. It is the best thing ever. I have three favorite episodes, and the season only has six episodes. But how could I choose between the Nazi dinosaur episode, the Nazi mecha episode, and the episode where Rommel has a tank plated in gold? Seriously, how could I choose? There are sequences in this show where I don't stop laughing from one joke before the next joke hits for about five or six jokes in a row.
The season finale, "Final Victory", may be a more sublime subversion of the historical record than the theater scene in Inglourious Basterds. Tarantino shows, I wrote, that it's okay to laugh at Hitler and the Nazis, because they are base, foul, vile monsters. But Danger 5 shows that it's okay to laugh and laugh and laugh, but it also, because of its broader, more spacious perspective, slots Hitler's brutality and inhumanity onto a spectrum of attitudes that make him easier to comprehend. In some ways, Carmine Russo's oafish, venial, carnal Hitler is more recognizably human than any "serious" attempt to actually treat with Hitler as a person. That humanity leads to some oddly moving moments, as when he refuses to let Himmler kill Jackson and Ilsa because they have been interrupting HIS plans and HE deserves to exact revenge on them. Meanwhile, Jackson and Ilsa have been too focused on their petty jealousies to spend any time thinking about the monstrosity of Himmler's plan- which as I recall, the team never actually gets around to foiling. Hitler's monstrosity compares to the pettiness of the Danger 5 team. Hitler is unmistakably the villain- this is not, unlike Archer, a story where the 'good guys' are secretly worse than the 'bad guys'. But the difference between Hitler and the Danger 5 time is the level of depravity, not some fundamental difference in human nature. And I find something moving and reassuring about that.
And this complements the subversion of femininity the Ilsa/Claire dynamic reveals. Ilsa is repeatedly shown to be more moral than Claire, despite her rejection of anything resembling conventional relationship logic. More moral because she understands the stakes at hand and is willing to do anything to get her job done, because Hitler absolutely needs to be stopped, but also more moral because she is honest about her desires and her pursuit of those desires. Claire's chastity is mocked but not dismissed by the show (it is a vital antidote to Tucker's buttoned up Anglo-Saxon chauvinism), but it is shown to be hypocritical and suppositious. In one of the show's weirdly emotional sight-gags, Ilsa is transformed by Hitler's Aryan sex magic into a blonde, blue-eyed sex kitten, to her utter horror. Only "corrupted" Swiss blood can heal her of this dangerous infirmity and restore her to her position in opposition of Claire, and by perverse extension, Hitler.
... None of this made sense. People, watch Danger 5 so I can discuss it and have people check my weirder thoughts about this show.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-26 10:18 pm (UTC)I want to comment on your post, but I have the problem of being utterly confused as to which one is Claire and which one is Ilsa. Is Claire the blond one? I remember her saying something about not being naked before in the hot tub scene in the dinosaur episode, but only vaguely.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-27 03:33 am (UTC)But um... it is amazing how much this show is up my alley.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-28 02:39 am (UTC)I really like Ilsa, but I can't tell if I like her because she is sufficiently badass and chill, or because she is Russian. Usually that wouldn't affect me! But she keeps speaking Russian (correctly, too, as far as I can tell). That throws me off. I want her to be badass, and since this is a 1960s parody she obviously is.
My complaint, of sorts, about the female characters, is that I really wish they didn't put in hints of a romantic rivalry between Ilsa and Claire. The entire bit in the French Resistance episode where Ilsa is all pissy because Claire is popular with guys annoyed me -- I mean, I get that she was mostly upset about Claire potentially getting a medal, but the entire fellating Goebels bit? The guys don't have any bitchiness of that sort, as far as I can tell. That said -- it is a 1960s parody, they had to give them character development, it is only three episodes in, it is a more hilarious than having them compete with the guys all the time, etc. But since it is the sort of comedy show that repeats gags for extra effect (which is fine!), I am kind of sort of worried about it becoming an unrivaled subplot and the main thing about the characters. I really hope that doesn't happen.
Also, I find the fact that they have a stock footage of Hitler jumping out the window to be hilarious as all hell. Also -- having Eagle-man be their boss was an amazingly good call. It is such a wonderful way to both make their boss seem like a character and make his lack of actual characterisation a (funny) gag, rather than a cliche.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-28 03:03 pm (UTC)The Hitler jumping out the window gag is one of my favorite things. It gets me every single time, even when I know it's coming. The Eagle is great, especially in a later episode where he eats a spider, but my favorite running joke is dying people telling Pierre cocktail recipes in his arms. I really, really want to have a party where we watch Danger 5 and drink all of the perfect cocktails.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-27 02:53 pm (UTC)I was never able to get through Game of Thrones for some of the reasons you mentioned. I love ensemble casts, I love thorny mysteries, but I just wasn't able to keep chugging on with no promise of any real explanations in sight. (Also, I found most of the dude characters boring. If this book had been told mostly from the perspectives of Caitlin, Sansa, Daenerys, and Arya, I would probably have liked it much more.)
(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-27 11:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-27 11:13 pm (UTC)