A Tribute to Great Television: Friday Night Lights

One of the best shows you never watched.  This phrase gets thrown around a lot, but this is one of the rare cases where this statement is true.  The origin of the television show is also a story that many people may not know.   Many people know that the television show was derived from a movie, but the movie was based on a popular non-fiction book.



In 1990 H. G. Bissinger released a book he wrote entitled "Friday Night Lights: A Town, a Team and a Dream."  The book centers partly around the Permian Panthers high school football team from Odessa Texas and their epic battle to make it to the State championship.  While football was the primary reason for writing the book, the book became a critique of the ardent racism which still existed within the town, and the way people ignored the economic hardships they faced to focus on this one football team.  The book takes an in depth look at how these football players are Gods within the town. Then once their careers end, and they are no longer superstars they become become part of of the heard mentality that that honors football rather than help change the economic struggles of the town.

The book was met with some severe criticism by the towns people of Odessa, but the actual events of the book have held up and were confirmed to be true.  This book has been reprinted numerous times, and is one of the most popular sports books of all time.   In 1993 the book spawned its first adaptation with a short lived television show entitled Against the Grain, which had young Ben Affleck. The show did not last long.  In  2002 Sports Illustrated magazine named it the fourth best sports book of all time, which brought the story of this small town back to the forefront.

After being named one of the best sports books of all time it only made sense to adapt Bissinger's book into a film.  The film was released in 2004 and directed by Bissinger's second cousin Peter Berg.  The center of the story was the 1988 football season where Coach Gary Gaines (Billy Bob Thornton) overplays one of his star players James "Boobie" Miles and Boobie tears his ACL.  The film is a good representation of triumph over adversity.  The coach must bring his team together and try and shut out the outside world and prove he can win.  While team pushes forward Boobie must realize his dreams of playing in the NFL are over and while he has focused on football his whole life he must now think about his life moving in a different direction.

Berg did a decent job with the film, but stated that there limitations to the story he wanted to tell with a film. Berg adapted the film into a television show with Brian Grazer, and David Nevins for NBC Universal.  While Berg kept some of the heart of the story and the characters from the book and film he made his own adjustments for the television series.  Berg changed the town from Odessa to a fictionalized town Dillon, Texas; he did keep the same team mascot the Panthers.  Instead of focusing on the Coach Gaines, Berg focused on Coach Taylor and his family.  Coach Taylor was played Kyle Chandler.  Berg kept Connie Britton on for the television series.  Britton played Coach Gary's wife the film, and played Tami Taylor in the television series.  Berg also kept Brad Leland who played Buddy Garritty  in both the film and television show.

Kyle Chandler and Connie Britton represented the heart of this show.  Their great performances and Coach Eric Taylor and Tami Taylor represented many of the dynamics of the show.  While Coach Taylor lived football he also loved his wife and family.  One part of the culture within this show is the concept of family on and off the field.  I will never forget in the first episode when Coach Taylor goes to visit Matt Saracen (Zach Gillford) and Saracen does not want to let the Coach in because he is ashamed of the way he lives and feels embarrassed by his grandmother who raised him.  Coach Taylor tells him to be proud of who he is, and to never forget grandmother has done so much for him.

While the Coach represents the world of football his wife represents the hope for education.  Tami Taylor takes a job at the high school as the guidance counselor in the second or third episode of the series.  Not only does the show focus on the concept of family through her, but it also shows how this woman tries to push the boys past thinking about a life on the field, and to think about life in the classroom.  Tami knows recognizes that after these boys leave high school and walk off the field there is not much for them; she wants to push many of them to not focus completely on football while still supporting her husband.

Throughout the shows five year run it discussed not only the game on the field, but social issues like racism, economic struggles, abortion, and many other issues.  The show was able to stay true to the concept of the book and take on a detailed look at life in small town Texas, and the cultural importance of one of their other religious experiences, Friday night football.  There are of course other characters that are crucial to the landscape of the show like the different football players and non football players and their stories.  There is the alcoholic bad boy Tim Riggins (Taylor Kitsch) who evolves into a person of substance as he tries to realize his full potential.  The show also has Landry Clark (Jesse Plemmons) who is an outsider to the world of football, and in the beginning realizes that a persons worth is measured by their role in the team, and the show shows how this character matters just as much throughout the years.  These are just two examples of the complex characters created for this show, and how they represent an interesting study of life in a small town.

The first season of the show was on NBC and ran for 22 episodes.  The show was close to cancellation, but with an ardent fan base the show was saved from cancellation.  NBC negotiated a contract with Direct-TV to play the show for the next three seasons.  Each season lasted between 12-13 episodes long.  In the fifth and final season the popularity grew enough, and the show made an appearance back in the NBC line-up.

Throughout the years the show was nominated 13 Emmy nominations (far too few).  In its first season it was nominated for Outstanding Directing in a Drama Series for the pilot episode and won for Outstanding Casting in a Drama Series.  The show did not get other major nominations until its fourth season when its two lead characters Kyle Chandler and Connie Britton were both nominated, and it was nominated for Outstanding Writing in a Drama Series.  In the shows fifth and final season the show was finally nominated for Outstanding Drama Series, both Britton and Chandler were nominated and again.  Chandler won the award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series, and showrunner (at the time) Jason Katims won for writing the series finale entitled "Always."

While the show may not have been the most popular while it aired countless people have been finding the show after it has left the air.  Coach Taylor and his family on and off the field represent an important piece of television history.  This show may be the best sports television show of all time because it goes beyond the film and explores life in a sociological context.  The show is also incredibly inspirational, and makes you feel ans though with drive you can push yourself to succeed.  So as Coach Taylor says as before he walks out of the lock room with his team "Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can't Lose!"

GCB....a Reason to Avoid Texas and Poorly Constructed TV

Tonight I sat down to watch the new ABC show GCB for two reasons Annie Potts and Kristin Chenowith. That is my defense when people ask me why.  The most important question on most minds out there is what does GCB even mean?  This new television show is based on a series of books entitled "Good Christian Bitches."  Why the name change, well ABC got cold feet and first decided to change the name to Good Christian Belles, but then decided to split the difference and go with abbreviated title makes them look like an even bigger sell out.  Gotta love the Disney machine.  This is the reason quality programming is escaping the grasps of the major networks.  If you are going to do something you have to do it right!

On to the show itself.  GCB centers on Amanda Vaughn (Leslie Bibb) who moves back to Dallas after her ponzi scheming husband dies in a car crash while Amanda's best friend is giving him road head.  Amanda's assets are tied up because of her husbands money swindling so she is forced to back to Dallas with her two children and live with wonderfully witty Christian mother Gigi Stopper played by the biggest breath of fresh air to this show Annie Potts.  Amanda's homecoming is not a welcome one; she has returned as the former mean girl in high school to find out that her title has been usurped and four women she made fun of in high school have become the queen bees of her neighborhood, church, and Dallas.

This terrible foursome is made up of Sharon Peachum (Jennifer Aspen) a housewife who overeats to deal with her stress; she is married to a man that Amanda would never give the time of day, but he still carries a torch for her.  Heather Cruz (Marisol Nichols) is a real estate magnate and is the only potential ally Amanda has in the group; she quickly saw that Amanda was a changed person so quick if you blinked you would have missed her evil stares at the beginning.  Cricket Caruth-Reilly (Miriam Schor) works with her husband who owns a cattle ranch; she is pulling the strings to get Amanda black balled, but does not see that she has a husband who would rather spend time with the ranch hand, if you catch my drift.  Then there is Carleen Cockburn (Kristin Chenowith) who is the new queen bee, married to an oil magnate, sings the in the church choir, and climbs on her step stool to see things in the neighborhood through her giant telescope.  Carleen hates Amanda most and is poised to be her bitter rival throughout the run of this show.

GCB is Desperate Housewives in the South, but does not have as strong a start as its Housewives. I have a feeling this show will anger most of the southern evangelical crowd because it pokes fun at them a bit, and the joke is somewhat amusing, but not funny enough.   I did not care about any of the characters, nothing pulled me into the plot.  I thought I was going to be thrown off by the location of the show and the way the show used the good ole Dallas ways, but that was fun.  Annie Potts is by far the best part of the show; she has the wit and charm that will keep me watching for one or two more weeks to give this show a few more chances.  While i like Bibb in her former show Popular, I can't help but think this just is not the strongest character, or it may be the way she is playing Amanda that does not work.  The supporting players sans Chenowith (and Potts) are incredibly forgettable.  The only reason Chenowith manages from saved from this is because of her talent as an actress.  With a lackluster cast, the shows only hope is that the writing improves.

GCB was created by Robert Harling.  Harling not only created the show, but he wrote most of the first few episodes of the series.  Harling also wrote Steel Magnolias, Soapdish, and The First Wives Club.  These are three of my biggest guilt pleasure films, I love them. These films are filled with a lot of wit, which could help GCB out as it grows, but bless his heart I think Harling could be in for a world of hurting.  The show may start out strong with the ratings, but I can't see it having a lasting appeal beyond the novelty of being more than a lesser version of Desperate Housewives that will be leaving the air this May.

Time to Reboot! Film Franchises Getting a Jolt from Bourne to Batman

This evening I watched The Bourne Identity, and it made me think about a trend going on in films today.  Many successful franchises that have flat lined or started to creatively falter have started to have been remade or taken a new path.  Bourne does not follow this pattern.  This is a film series that got increasingly better.  Not only did the quality increase with the third film The Bourne Ultimatum (which won an Academy Award for Best Film Editing), but the amount of money increased from film to film.  The Bourne Identity made 121 million domestically, The Bourne Supremacy made 176 million domestically, and The Bourne Ultimatum made 227 million domestically.  Matt Damon is a pretty popular actor, but they are replacing him in the series with actor Jeremy Renner who will play Aaron Cross.

Why replace Damon and change up the successful franchise?  I have tried to find an explanation that explains why, but it may be as simple as the film makers in Hollywood are getting smarter than ever before.  Damon's Jason Bourne's story seemed complete in the last film.  Is this the a story of greedy producers or producers who realize they have a good story on their hands that can evolve throughout time.  Robert Ludlum has created numerous books cased on this this character, so there is a lot of story that can be adapted to make many movies for the future.  Bourne is the American version of James Bond for the next generation, but even more badass.  The latest Bourne movie which is being released this year is being directed and written by Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton, Duplicity) an expert in writing political thrillers.  This will be his first major action film he had directed.  Based on the preview below I am more excited than hesitant about the direction of this new franchise.

Bourne is not the only film franchise reboot this year. The Spiderman franchise unlike the Bourne franchise flatlined in quality with the third film.  Spiderman 3 was seen as a massive decline from the first two films.  The script was terrible, and with massive uncertainty about a 4th film, director Sam Raimi crammed a lot of plot into one film that did not connect cohesively.  Throughout the the franchise history each film in the Spiderman franchise made relatively the same amount of money.  the first film made a little over 400 million, the second film made about 377 million, and the third film made 336 million.  Throughout the years the franchise did slowly decrease in domestic box office numbers.  There was talk back and forth that the original cast would come back to do a fourth film but that was squashed.  Then there were rumors that Raimi direct the rebooted series but then that fell through.  Spiderman was almost dead in the water but with the success of the rebooted Batman series Columbia decided this film was worth a reboot.

The Amazing Spiderman will be released this summer with Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) as Peter Parker and Emma Stone (Easy A) as his original love interest from the comic books Gwen Stacey.  Like with the Batman reboot it feels as though this reboot will be a bit darker, and follow a path more similar to the comic books.  The film is being directed by Marc Webb (500 Days of Summer) and has Harry Potter screenwriter Steven Kloves.  The combination of these two men should prove succesful.  There are a couple of key ingrediants missing, like J Jonah Jamerson, but I trust that this film series will not be handled with great care than the original.  I will be curious if Emma's Gwen Stacey eventually gets the same fate as her character in the comics, if they do that (at some point) I will be impressed.

This trend seemed to take flight with Batman Begins (2005).  Most films prior to this kept aiming to continue the pattern of previous films, or tried to be a sequel to other series even without the main character (s).  Like the Terminator franchise without Arnold.  The last film Batman film prior to this 1997's Batman and Robin.  Joel Schumacher had already brought this series down a peg with Batman Forever but this fourth film in the series took the franchise to a whole new low.  George Clooney was vetted to play Bruce Wayne; he seemed like a great choice, but he will never be able to live down the focus on the bat nipples.  This film is beyond campy, and makes the 1960s television series look like Citizen Kane.

Eight year later Christian Bale takes over as Bruce Wayne in Christopher Nolan's version of Batman, and fanboys drooled over just how great this film was.  Who would have known it could only get better, with the sequel The Dark Knight.  This is the only film based on a comic book series to be nominated for and win a major Academy Award (Heath Ledger's posthumous win for playing the Joker).  This year the  third and final film in the franchise is going to be released, The Dark Knight Rises.  There are of course already rumblings that there will be another reboot after Nolan walks away, but I am hoping the series gets a reprieve for a little while.

As this trend continues to work film companies are going continue this pattern, and adapt it as needed.  For example X-Men: First Class, which is not really a reboot but more of an origins story.  With the popularity of this film don't be surprised if they either reboot the entire X-Men franchise or make a sequel to the film released this past year.  As long as the quality of these films remain steady this is one trend I am on board with!

Space the Final Frontier...Entering New Worlds!

The opening line to the Star Trek film and television series is "Space the final Frontier."  As I watched
 the reboot of the original Star Trek series, from JJ Abrams last night, it made think about how films provide a beautiful escape to new unexplored worlds for viewers.  For me films like Star Trek are great because they provide an escape to a place that I may never be able to explore myself, or experience a made up world.

Throughout this past week I have been watching a lot about the exploration of space.  Last weekend I watched every Star Wars film starting with episode I and ending with episode VI.  On a film level this reminded me how Phantom Menace was not awful, Attack of the Clones is the worst, and the original series is untouchable.

Star Wars like Star Trek has made it apparent that we are anxious to follow through with the goals of Republican Presidential hopeful New Gingrich, we want a base on the moon that will help start exploring the final frontier.  The problem with this statement or this ideology is that there are more pressing matters on earth that deserve our attention.  This is where movies, television and books fill the void.

While space exploration is cool (and they are talking about it on Bill Maher as I am typing this ironically) at the moment we must depend on the escapism from film, television and books.  Together these three mediums have helped people to explore new worlds for many years.  Each conduit has also shown that there is more than space, there is Middle Earth, Narnia, Westeross, and many many more.

The power of these different mediums is that they can provide an escape to a galaxy far far away or to the final frontier, and using your imagination the viewer can be part of an incredible adventure.  As a young child I remember people encouraging me to use my imagination while playing.  As I grew up and became an adult no one told me to stop, but people looked at me as though I was different when I kept using my imagination for different things. Movies, television, and books have provided me with an escape from the real world for my entire life.  I want to keep using these methods to escape my hectic life and be able to journey to a far away land where people have light sabers, or there may be dragons.  Entering new worlds through your imagination takes away the stress of life, and provides a fun escape.

March Must See Movies and Movies to Skip

As the post Academy Award drought begins March has many promising films that could be entertaining.  During the months of January and February I looked forward to catching up on smaller films, and begrudgingly suffering through films like The Woman in Black with friends.  I can honestly say there are some decent prospects this month.

March 2nd

The Lorax

Project X

Being Flynn

The most promising release for this week is The Lorax, which is from the creators of Despicable Me.  This Dr. Seuss tale will be a big hit at the box office drawing in drones of families, but will it be worth your time?  I am not excited by this film, but I do think it could be solid.  X looks like its trying to hard to a teenage rip off of The Hangover.  With poor marketing this film will do poorly and sink slowly.  Being Flynn is another DeNiro vehicle that seems to have being angry and yelling.  While the preview is not bad this looks to be a waste of everyone's time.

March 9th

John Carter

Salmon Fishing in Yemen

Friends with Kids

A Thousand Words

Silent House

John Carter always seems to have people baffled while watching the preview.  Everyone I know asks who is John Carter, and not with intrigue, more with a sense of who cares.  I predict this film to be a mess and a box office flop.  I saw Salmon Fishing and I liked the film, I did not love it.  I think this will hit a small population, the film is charming but will not draw large crowds-worth seeing.  Friends with Kids looks hilarious, more like a sitcom, but but worth watching on the big screen.  Eddie Murphy's latest film looks like a waste of time and money.  Silent House looks like the thing thrillers are meant to be made of and Elizabeth Olsen is a great find!

March 16th 

21 Jump Street

Casa de Mi Padre

If you do mind movies that are both stupid and funny go see 21 Jump Street, it was pretty hilarious.  Casa looks like another Will Ferrell movie I will try and avoid, while I do not hate him I think his schtick is getting tired the same way it has done with Adam Sandler.  Time to grow up and find a new modus operandi. 

March 23rd

The Hunger Games

No one wanted to compete with the film that outsold Twilight.  I read the first book, and liked it.  I think the film looks solid, and it has a great cast and great director.  I do not want it become the next Twilight where it was rushed to the big screen to make money.  Even though Twilight was always going to be a terrible film series.

March 30th 

Wrath of the Titans

Mirror Mirror

Bully

Was a sequel needed for Clash of the Titans?  I do not remember the first film being that successful.  The sequel looks awful.  Mirror Mirror looks campy, and not in a good way, what happened Julia?  I have to put Bully on this, this is a documentary about a young boy who was bullied, not because of his orientation, but because he was different and highlight his parents crusade to help others.  This looks fantastic.

Must See Movies: Bully, The Hunger Games, The Lorax, 21 Jump Street,  Silent House

Movies to Skip:A Thousand Words, Wrath of the Titans, Mirror Mirror, John Carter, Project X

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen Swims Upstream Against Cliche and Fights to Swim in a Commentary on Issues from Today

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen (3 out of 5)

Directed by Lasse Hallstrom (Chocolat, The Cider House Rules)

Written by Simon Beaufoy (The Full Monty, Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours)

Starring: Ewan McGregor, Emily Blunt, Amr Waked and Kristin Scott Thomas

Last night I caught the screening for this movie with its star Emily Blunt.  Ms. Blunt is first and foremost a beautifully charming individual; she talked about a funny story while filming this where she attempted to fish and ended up hooking Ewan's dog.  While many of the questions were about the film, her craft, and working with co-stars like Meryl Streep and Miss. Piggy.  There were also questions about her lovely husband Jon Krasinski whose parents were in the audience because they live in Newton, MA.  Blunt has a terrific presence which explains how she can help carry material that was had its moments of beauty and some big misses.

Salmon Fishing centers on a fisheries expert, Dr. Afred Jones (McGregor) who is approached by a consultant, Harriet Chetwoode-Talbot (Blunt) to help a Sheikh from Yemen (Waked) live out his dream by fishing in Yemen.  When Jones initially hears about the project he writes a e-mail to Harriet stating that because logically Salmon would not be able to adapt to the environment in Yemen this was not possible.  Enter the government.  The next morning Patricia Maxwell who is in charge of the press office for the Prime Minister, is awoken by the news of a bombing in Afghanistan.  Maxwell needs a new story to change the tone, and lands on making Dr. Jones aid in the Sheikh's journey to make it possible to fish for Salmon in the Yemen.

The directing/writing team of Hallstrom and Beaufoy combines the strength of each person.  Separately they have each contributed some great work to their perspective film category.  Hallstrom knows how to turn on the charm his films Chocolat and The Cider House Rules were both films that used charm from their books to influence their perspective films.  In a way Hallstrom knows how to work with adapted material, and make it work.  Hallstrom has also adapted the films Dear John and The Shipping News, which ultimately did not work. 


 Beaufoy's scripts have been incredibly solid, while I do not know if his talents match that of the director; he has adapted some wonderful screenplays himself.  Together this team make a film that while enjoyable does not always hit the right spots.  While this film is solid, witty, and charming it often loses the deeper messages that are meant to be conveyed as it tries to romantically connect Blunt and McGregor's character.  The real storyteller is the natural environment where the shot the film.  Cinematographer Terry Stacey does an excellent job showing the beauty of Scotland and Yemen.  Each scene was more breathtaking than the next and it was like getting lost on a magical journey.

 Blunt and McGregor have solid chemistry, and in listening to her speak to us she stated "actors work best when they build good rapport off screen."  While watching these two on screen it was apparent that they hit it it off, and got along swimmingly.  Blunt does a good job with her role, carrying the wait of emotional grief well.  While McGregor's role and evolution of character is harder to display, he does a good job, because he is a good actor.  The real highlights of the film for me are the two supporting players Kristin Scott Thomas's Maxwell brings an amazingly witty breath of fresh air to this film; she is utterly fantastic.  Waked who played the Sheikh is also brilliant.  Waked has done a lot of smaller roles, but I feel as though this film, and this role will be a major breakthrough for him.  Waked is charming, charismatic, and has tremendous acting potential.

Scott Thomas and Waked's characters represent the most intriguing parts of the film.  The film is meant to show the way politics misrepresent certain situations, and  the way logic and faith can have an impact on life decisions.  While I believe the film uses these concepts well, the film is not able to delve deep enough into the subject matter.

Scott Thomas represents the political structure.  Through her character, and looking at the fisheries office the film itself mocks today's politicos through showing their conversations via using an instant messenger, having the Prime Minister pretending to fish, and showing their need to create an agenda to gloss over the negative in today's society or create a staged photo opportunity.  While the  script is sharp enough not to shove this down the audiences throat, it does lose the sharper veracity on political structures.

The Sheikh's character is a commentary on the lack of faith in today's world.  His character has a huge impact on Dr. Jones whose reasoning is based solely on logic, but this project with the sheikh tends to shake his thinking about not only salmon, but life.  While Maked was great, and Ewen's transformation does occur, I feel like this is the weakest aspect of the film.  This is the foundation for the relationship that exists between McGregor and Blunt, and its often set on shaky ground.  Blunt and McGregor's chemistry save the day here.  I would have liked more of Maked's character because is the heart and soul of this film; he is the person who wants to do the impossible, and his journey is more fascinating than Dr. Jones.

At the end of the day this film's solid beauty and wit propel this be a decent film, that makes you believe in something more than just staying the course.  While the leads may be what we are meant to focus on, the supporting cast steal the show, and bring the film back to its core.  This is not just a love story but a commentary on life today.

Our Future Hijacked by Machines: We Love It! By Alberto Lorenzo

Today marks the first day my page has a guest writer, and that is my good friend Alberto Lorenzo who works at Georgetown University.  I like what he has to say about human dependency on technology and after watching all six Star Wars films this past weekend I just had to include his piece, so here it is.  Please contribute!


http://filmpulsations.tumblr.com/

The rise of digital media, as discussed by theorists, is in many ways, breaking away from what is considered “cinema.” However, it is very contradictory to think about it in terms of the ways it also propels “film” forward (or away?) from what we are used to. Surely, there is usually a wish to return to “reality” or “nature” in films such as Strange Days (1995), but for the most part, there is an enjoyment that comes from encountering the digitally enhanced reality that presents us with never-ending choices. At the core, getting lost in a digital world in the premise of most movies involves the pairing or joining of human and machine in some form of way. As the 20th century approached its culmination, more and more of these movies seemed to surface as the Western world grew more and more dependent on computers and machines. In fact, one way to think about this anxiety is to reflect on the Y2K problem that plagued the minds of many companies at the end of the 1990’s.

Another peculiar aspect about films that deal with the merging of human and machine, is their compulsory need to locate themselves in time, mostly, if not always, in the future. For example, Blade Runner (1982), set in 2019, deals with “replicants” or human bioengineered beings that have been designed to live for short spans of time but eventually are overcome with human-like desire to live longer; the Terminator series also deals with an imminent, Armageddon-like future where machines have successfully overpowered humans and threaten the very existence of the race; the rather famousAvatar (2009) locates itself in 2154, once again, as if giving us a timeline. While some of the representations of digital-life/computer-life in these examples differ slightly from one another, there is a double-impetus of fear and desire that haunts the ontology of these themes: do we love these ideas because they teach us about the things we fear and should thus avoid (future)? Or do we love them because we fear that, in many ways, we are already irreversibly headed in that direction (lack of future)?

An interesting way to think about these films and their futuristic timelines is to look at other films and even novels whose “future” is now our “past.” Aside from the very obvious Strange Days, Orwell’s novel 1984 (1934), and later a film the same year of its title, is a gleaming example of a novel set fifty years into its future that is now almost thirty years into our past. The presence of media and what we have come to know as computers, cameras, and screens in 1984 is what is scary about 1984. Our fascination with the possibility of a future hijacked by computer use, surveillance, and embodiment is both attractive and scary and this is a perfect recipe for films released years leading up to and away from the Millennium.