![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Specifically, jumping off from The Zanzibar Marketplace Job:
Okay, I had a problem with this episode: that it was so unfuckingbelievably awesome that I couldn't help thinking that I wouldn't mind at all if the show was always like this episode, with Nate and Maggie as an on-again-off-again couple getting into scrapes and Tara as the team's grifter. I like Gina Bellman as Sophie quite a lot, so I feel super-bad saying this, but I did not miss her at all in this ep, or for that matter in The Bottle Job or in The Future Job. Nate and Tara work well together, and the fact that they're strictly professional and not romantic at all is actually a bonus--I just watch them work the room as partners and delight in how good they are at it. I also like the way Tara interacts with the other cast members--I dig that she's not part of the family, but instead, the outsider they call in for special jobs; she also has fabulous chemistry with everyone; I think TV producers cry at night hoping to get this kind of strong chemistry with their regular casts, never mind the guest stars. I've always liked Jeri Ryan, but I'm surprised by just how much I like her in this role; I will be genuinely sorry to see her go when Gina Bellman comes back. I'd settle for Tara sticking around when Sophie returns, but I know it won't happen.
I don't dislike the ship of Nate and Sophie...but I ship the hell out of Nate and Maggie, because Timothy Hutton and Kari Matchett have that once-in-a-lifetime chemistry that you can see for your own damn self in the multiple different roles where they've worked together (A Nero Wolfe Mystery, 5ive Days to Midnight, and, y'know, here). Goodness knows, Nate and Maggie's history is at least as tangled and compelling as Nate and Sophie's, so for sheer dramatic material, it's kinda just a matter of preference. But Nate/Sophie is the endgame, I know, so I will not let myself get any more maudlin about Hutton and Matchett and how they are screen magic, baby...
Other unworthy thoughts: I totally love that Nate's drinking again. As some commenter on John Rogers' blog put it, he's more interesting as a functional alcoholic than he is sober. Self-destructiveness can be very painful to watch--in real life, it pretty much always is, unless you carry a major hate for the self-destructive person--but under the right circumstances (with a well-written character, a good actor, a convincing scenario) nothing in fiction is more compelling. To me, Nate and Nate's issues and Nate's drinking are definitely in the camp of compelling. I could and will watch Timothy Hutton in anything; he's such an interesting actor, and usually the most powerful actor every scene he's in (tho' he's a consummate pro, and does not steal focus when he shouldn't); sober Nate is thus still interesting. But I think the absolute highlight of Hutton's performance in the show was in The First David Job, when we were seeing his drinking and his self-destructiveness and self-delusions pretty much at their peak. It's a killer part, and he nails every second of it.
(Okay, he might have topped it with that absolutely devastating scene in The Second David Job where Nate tells Maggie the truth about the death of their son--it's rawly painful, and I have never been able to watch it without crying. But any decent actor should be able to go to town with material that juicy, and I think it's a little more difficult to hit the right notes in portraying someone who's spiraling out of control, but not yet hit the bottom.) Watching Nate transition from being a (presumably) reasonably happy person (successful in his job, married to the awesomeness that is Maggie, raising their much-loved, late-life son with her--Nate's obviously always had issues, but it does seem like he enjoyed his life at that point) to the staggeringly messed up person we know--well, seeing that would have been hard. But we got to skip it; we were introduced to Nate as a mess, so instead of watching him go through the initial, awful decline, we've just watched him struggle along in the dirt, sometimes getting his head up and even looking approximately in the direction of okay; mostly not. That mess is just fascinating to me. Nate needs to wallow in it? Hell yeah, let's wallow.
Okay, I had a problem with this episode: that it was so unfuckingbelievably awesome that I couldn't help thinking that I wouldn't mind at all if the show was always like this episode, with Nate and Maggie as an on-again-off-again couple getting into scrapes and Tara as the team's grifter. I like Gina Bellman as Sophie quite a lot, so I feel super-bad saying this, but I did not miss her at all in this ep, or for that matter in The Bottle Job or in The Future Job. Nate and Tara work well together, and the fact that they're strictly professional and not romantic at all is actually a bonus--I just watch them work the room as partners and delight in how good they are at it. I also like the way Tara interacts with the other cast members--I dig that she's not part of the family, but instead, the outsider they call in for special jobs; she also has fabulous chemistry with everyone; I think TV producers cry at night hoping to get this kind of strong chemistry with their regular casts, never mind the guest stars. I've always liked Jeri Ryan, but I'm surprised by just how much I like her in this role; I will be genuinely sorry to see her go when Gina Bellman comes back. I'd settle for Tara sticking around when Sophie returns, but I know it won't happen.
I don't dislike the ship of Nate and Sophie...but I ship the hell out of Nate and Maggie, because Timothy Hutton and Kari Matchett have that once-in-a-lifetime chemistry that you can see for your own damn self in the multiple different roles where they've worked together (A Nero Wolfe Mystery, 5ive Days to Midnight, and, y'know, here). Goodness knows, Nate and Maggie's history is at least as tangled and compelling as Nate and Sophie's, so for sheer dramatic material, it's kinda just a matter of preference. But Nate/Sophie is the endgame, I know, so I will not let myself get any more maudlin about Hutton and Matchett and how they are screen magic, baby...
Other unworthy thoughts: I totally love that Nate's drinking again. As some commenter on John Rogers' blog put it, he's more interesting as a functional alcoholic than he is sober. Self-destructiveness can be very painful to watch--in real life, it pretty much always is, unless you carry a major hate for the self-destructive person--but under the right circumstances (with a well-written character, a good actor, a convincing scenario) nothing in fiction is more compelling. To me, Nate and Nate's issues and Nate's drinking are definitely in the camp of compelling. I could and will watch Timothy Hutton in anything; he's such an interesting actor, and usually the most powerful actor every scene he's in (tho' he's a consummate pro, and does not steal focus when he shouldn't); sober Nate is thus still interesting. But I think the absolute highlight of Hutton's performance in the show was in The First David Job, when we were seeing his drinking and his self-destructiveness and self-delusions pretty much at their peak. It's a killer part, and he nails every second of it.
(Okay, he might have topped it with that absolutely devastating scene in The Second David Job where Nate tells Maggie the truth about the death of their son--it's rawly painful, and I have never been able to watch it without crying. But any decent actor should be able to go to town with material that juicy, and I think it's a little more difficult to hit the right notes in portraying someone who's spiraling out of control, but not yet hit the bottom.) Watching Nate transition from being a (presumably) reasonably happy person (successful in his job, married to the awesomeness that is Maggie, raising their much-loved, late-life son with her--Nate's obviously always had issues, but it does seem like he enjoyed his life at that point) to the staggeringly messed up person we know--well, seeing that would have been hard. But we got to skip it; we were introduced to Nate as a mess, so instead of watching him go through the initial, awful decline, we've just watched him struggle along in the dirt, sometimes getting his head up and even looking approximately in the direction of okay; mostly not. That mess is just fascinating to me. Nate needs to wallow in it? Hell yeah, let's wallow.
John Rogers on fanfic: re: Leverage
Aug. 26th, 2009 11:28 pmNot the first reason why I love Leverage, but, I think, if I were to make a list of every single damn thing I love about this show and all the components of it, not the last, either:
Leverage writer/producer John Rogers in one of his post-episode query-response posts (specifically, The Three Days of the Hunter Job):
[In the above quote, italics equal emphasis mine.]
What is that, you say? What is that smell? Why, it is the scent of sanity, sir or madam; the smell of contemporary media sophistication.
Also--and I know Rogers is a geek, but still--quoting Alan Moore never makes you look bad. He didn't get that way by accident. Alan Moore got that way because, barring only the rarely brilliant, he is much smarter and more insightful than all the other people. Also weirder.
Leverage writer/producer John Rogers in one of his post-episode query-response posts (specifically, The Three Days of the Hunter Job):
@619: I personally HATE fanfic so I was wondering..... 1)How do YOU feel about fan fiction? 2)Does it irk you that so many people "borrow" your characters and use them in their own crappy stories? 3)Do you think of fanfic as a form of flattery? 4)Do the other writers and the actors feel the same way?
1.) I think fanfic is the sign of a healthy show. Here's what it boils down to: you're telling me that in today's crowded media space, our show made someone love it so much they take time out of their own life to talk about it? Holy. Crap.
To be fair, I have a somewhat different attitude toward media/fans than most people. I think what TV/corporate media had wrong for a long time was how they understood the idea of a "water cooler show." They saw it as making the audience talk about their show, on their terms. So any fan-created media is them losing control of their material. I see this more as the natural evolution of culture in a shared digital age. I will be blunt -- other than the satisfaction of our own creative urges (and all that entails: the quest for perfection, artistry, craft, etc), our job in media is to give you stuff to talk about in your conversations, to integrate into your social circle in whatever way you see fit. I doubt that's TNT's official stance, btw, but they are much cooler about this stuff than most companies.
2.) As far as "borrowing" our characters -- to paraphrase Alan Moore, they didn't go anywhere. There they are, sitting right up on the shelf. Waiting for us to let them loose again. Besides, how many people read a fanfic story? A couple hundred, tops? We have, on average 3.5 million viewers, well into the 4 million range when you get the DVR numbers in. I just don't see someone taking control of our Ideaspace through sheer force of Slashfic.
Sure, a lot of fanfic is crap. Of course it's crap. It's written by people who are not professional writers. If I paint, what I paint is crap. Does that mean I should give up painting and displaying stuff in my neighborhood art show?
3.) Is fanfic flattery? Again, depends on how you define flattery. If someone's writing fanfic with intention of currying favor for some ... er, frankly unguessable benefit, then they're really engaged in an exercise in futility. If you mean flattery as in: it's flattering to think someone is so entertained by our work that it inspires them to talk about it and create around it, then aces.
4.) Most writers and actors don't feel this way. Some, including writers I both like personally and greatly admire, hate the idea of fanfic.
Look, end of day, you should always be trying to create your own material. But fanfic, etc, is a different process than original creation -- which I think is the source of a lot of the controversy.
People who do original creations assume the fan is taking some sort of unearned ownership, somehow implying their act is the same/as difficult as the original act of creation. Which, of course, tees them off (doesn't tee me off, but I'm a very relaxed and often drunk guy).
And some fanfic humans are under the impression that creating fanfic is the same creative process as creating original material -- and are sometimes frustrated that they're not accorded the same respect as the original creators. That's also wrong. Fanfic to me is spiritually much closer to the fan-created music videos.
The basic rule I follow here is one I learned in stand-up comedy: Always punch UP. I am a relatively successful typing human whose words are physically produced using millions of dollars and is distributed nationally by a massive billion dollar corporation to millions of people. Exactly how is a free web page with a 1000 word story about Eliot and Hardison fighting a trans-dimensional incursion of Elves hurting my brand, exactly?
Tell you what -- if some fanfic writer is so good they manage to amass a million-person audience with their web-distributed free stories using my characters, I am going to consider that evolution in action and hire that bastard. Or, at the very least, urge them to go create their own show. But odds are it ain't gonna happen. And that's okay. We write for different reasons.
Wow, that response could be its own blog post. I may break it out later, and shine it a bit.
[In the above quote, italics equal emphasis mine.]
What is that, you say? What is that smell? Why, it is the scent of sanity, sir or madam; the smell of contemporary media sophistication.
Also--and I know Rogers is a geek, but still--quoting Alan Moore never makes you look bad. He didn't get that way by accident. Alan Moore got that way because, barring only the rarely brilliant, he is much smarter and more insightful than all the other people. Also weirder.
more Leverage: yes, I'm still on that
Jul. 26th, 2009 03:15 pmFabulous analysis of Nathan Ford, and why he's so fascinating, here. It's a great summation of everything I was struggling to articulate in that previous post. Spoilery for the first season.
I truly love everything about this show, all the characters, but Nate is definitely the character that pushes it into obsession for me.
I truly love everything about this show, all the characters, but Nate is definitely the character that pushes it into obsession for me.
Leverage squee
Jul. 26th, 2009 01:21 amThe appeal of Leverage can be summed up in five parts: (1) Smartly written (2) likable, interesting characters who like each other (3) skillfully work together (4) to run clever, entertaining scams in order to earn justice and recompense for (5) innocent people who have been crushed by the wealth and power of governmental and corporate corruption. Our heroes trick, hack, swindle, grift, and sometimes jump off of buildings (in order to break into them, cat-burglar style), all of which is super-fun television. They do all this equally because they enjoy running scans and (in the words of Christian Kane's last TV show), in order to help the helpless. The cast is excellent; the characters are endearing. It's light and breezy, maybe just a little bit too much so, but I forgive it, because it is so faultlessly entertaining.
( We can choose not to be bastards. )
( We can choose not to be bastards. )
your psa for the week
Jul. 21st, 2009 01:20 pmYou know what's awesome? Leverage. I'm at a loss as to what I like best about it: nommable Timothy Hutton, delectable Gina Bellman, the overall awesomeness of the ensemble cast, or the fact that apparently Kari Matchett is going to turn up somewhere, playing Hutton's character's ex-wife. Matchett played a variety of roles in the A&E adaptations of Nero Wolfe mysteries, including Lily Rowan, the non-exclusive and incomparable girlfriend of Archie Goodwin; Goodwin was played brilliantly by Hutton. Matchett was fantastic in all her roles, and had strong romantic and comedic chemistry with Hutton in many of her roles, particularly as Lily. If I could, I would pay for lots of movie tickets to see Hutton and Matchett paired up in romantic comedies, so just the idea of Matchett playing Nathan Ford's ex-wife makes me foam at the mouth in a good way.
Hutton is too scruffy as Ford; I liked his smartly-groomed Archie Goodwin look better. That is my only complaint so far. Oh, and also that in Netflix's Watch Instantly set-up for Leverage, it seems to be skipping around in the episodes--either it's out of chronological order or several episodes are just not available at all; I don't know which. But that's not the show's fault, it's Netflix's, so I won't hold it against them.
Hutton is too scruffy as Ford; I liked his smartly-groomed Archie Goodwin look better. That is my only complaint so far. Oh, and also that in Netflix's Watch Instantly set-up for Leverage, it seems to be skipping around in the episodes--either it's out of chronological order or several episodes are just not available at all; I don't know which. But that's not the show's fault, it's Netflix's, so I won't hold it against them.
