Friday, August 1, 2008
Did The X-Files Resolve the Mulder-Scully Romance? Could Leno Go to Top Gear? And More!
David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson, The X-Files: I Want to Believe
Question: What did you think of the new
X-Files movie? I, unlike many, had no expectations. Not low expectations, but not really any. So I was both pleasantly surprised and a little let down. I can see how all the secrecy surrounding the plot would lead some fans to assume something big was going on and then be disappointed. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that all the bad guys were evil, oddly cold Russians who (although their victims were both male and female) tended to depict most of the women in the movie as helpless damsels in distress. Also, there seemed to me an effort to be a little too relevant to "post-post-9/11" America (as Chris Carter calls it), with references to stem-cell research and whatnot. But even the hardest-to-impress X-Phile must admit that they nailed the Mulder-Scully relationship. Not only do I love where they are after six years; I believe it. Their scenes were so touching and their chemistry has doubled since their episodic days. Gillian Anderson and David Duchovny brought a maturity to their relationship that I felt was missing the last few seasons of the show. And I am particularly impressed with Gillian's performance. She brought such a heartbreakingly beautiful subtlety to the role and delivered lines that could have otherwise been weak or cheesy with a skill that reflects real maturity in her style. Overall, I'm happy with it. The story needed a little work, but the character development really did justice to the Mulder and Scully that seemed to peak and then peter off in the '90s.
— Reina
Matt Roush: I held off writing a Dispatch about this, in part because I'm covering it in the next magazine Review column as part of an overview of all of the lousy movies made this summer from classic TV properties. I've probably also been in a state of denial, because I thought The X-Files: I Want to Believe was awful, a huge and crushing disappointment to someone who regards himself a charter member of the show's critical fan club. And I wanted to believe, I wanted to care, truly I did. I wanted to be enthralled and scared and swept away, and instead, I felt I was watching a weak retread of The Silence of the Lambs minus a compelling villain. But then, I've never been of a mind, however much I enjoy the work of Duchovny and Anderson, that The X-Files worked best as a soap opera. I know that runs counter to Internet/fan site/message board sentiment, but watching Mulder and Scully snuggle and kiss and discuss (at length) their relationship wasn't the lure that got me into the theater. I thought those moments were among the most effective in the movie — although I probably enjoyed more the bit where Skinner cradled an ailing Mulder in his arms — but the movie itself was so drab and dreary and ordinary, like a throwaway episode churned out between sweeps months. Amanda Peet makes poor Annabeth Gish (from the final seasons) look like Meryl Streep. Billy Connelly's psychic pedophile priest pales in comparison to a truly original, haunting character like Peter Boyle's Clyde Bruckman. I could go on, but it just makes me sad. Though like you, I'm happy to get some Mulder-Scully closure. Given the early box office, looks like they needed it.
Question: I was curious what you thought of the new X-Files. Personally, I really liked it. I left the theater with a big smile on my face and I thought that David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson did a good job of representing Mulder and Scully as they might be six years later. Of course, it had its plot and editing missteps, but overall I was pleasantly surprised. After reading several poor reviews from critics and fans alike, it seems like there are a couple of sticking points that are really bugging people. One is that Scully is shown using Google to do medical research on novel stem-cell treatments. I agree this was totally ridiculous, but I don't think it was a deal breaker. The second was that Scully is somehow now a primary care physician/pediatric neurosurgeon/MD extraordinaire, despite her background in pathology. I don't get why people are surprised by this. It happened all the time on the series. Scully was always running around brandishing "I'm a medical doctor" like a sword, and was seemingly an expert on everything, not just pathology. To me, that wasn't a deal breaker either. Come on people, it's just a movie. What'd you think of the show's return to the big screen? — Jenny
Matt Roush: I think what you're describing is critical nitpicking and largely beside the point. It misses the big-picture problem that the movie simply lacked a pulse.
Question: Which network is doing
Top Gear for the U.S.?
That is where
Jay Leno needs to land. It's his favorite show, it's car related, it will be primetime. Adam Carolla? Uhhh... (waving my hands like Mike Wilbon)
No! I understand they are trying to plug him into the Jeremy Clarkson role, but Clarkson plays an oaf who nonetheless comes off as likable. Carolla is just a professional a--hole and
never comes off as likable. Carolla's Q-rating is probably a negative number! Jay Leno is extremely likable, loves the show and is more knowledgeable about autos than Clarkson/Hammond/May put together — he could
stock the show from his own garage. Plus, they can pay him primetime money. What am I missing here? (P.S.: For all those who say that Conan won't be as good at 11:30, well, that's true. But Letterman has never been as good at 11:30 as he was at 12:30 am either.)
— Scott, Los Angeles
Matt Roush: Can't imagine NBC won't be doing a little Leno synergy to launch its version of Top Gear this midseason, but you're right, Leno would be the perfect host for this show. And Dancing with the Stars goofiness aside, Adam Carolla isn't my idea of a draw. But I'm not sure even a show this well suited for Leno's temperament and his passion for cars would be enough to keep him at the network once the Tonight transition takes effect next May. (And the timing of this also is all wrong, since Leno won't be leaving his late-night post until next Memorial Day, and NBC is prepping Top Gear for earlier in '09.) But this is one of the best ideas I've heard — next to just letting things stay as they are in late night until Leno is ready to slow down, which isn't likely to happen soon. Poor, stupid NBC.
Question: I just wanted to throw in my feedback on recent items concerning
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog and
Gossip Girl. First of all, I loved the musical; the song "I Cannot Believe My Eyes" is my ringtone. I feel that the ending is what would logically happen. (
Spoiler alert)
Did any of us really expect that Billy and Penny would live happily ever after? It would not have worked. He wanted to be evil, for Pete's sake!! It is tragic, and I could see how some would think it was a letdown, but let's remember that this is Joss Whedon and we are lucky to have even had this to begin with. Secondly, on the item about
Gossip Girl and slowing down the time, you forgot to mention a show that did that!
One Tree Hill, while not known for its critical acclaim, did just that. Seasons 1 and 2 both took place in the cast's junior year, with 3 and 4 in their senior year. Granted, there were no holiday episodes, but it really didn't matter. And the move four years ahead for Season 5 was genius!! It took the characters out of where the supposed horrible college years would have been and created a whole new set of problems instead. I, for one, think that this is the best thing to happen to
One Tree Hill and I believe that Josh Schwartz can handle the college years. (Season 4 of
The O.C., anyone?)
— Kate
Matt Roush: Agreed on the first point. Dr. Horrible, for all of its sweetness and fun, is at heart something of a cautionary tale, not a fairy tale. And you're not the only one to bring up One Tree Hill in this particular discussion. To me, that particular leap forward was less an attempt to avoid the college years as an acknowledgement that these actors were clearly too old to keep playing teens. But since the fans seem to think it helped the show, good for them.
Question: I've got to say, Act 3 of
Dr. Horrible disturbed me, but not because of its shift in tone from hilarious and well-crafted musical to tale of epic tragedy. The shift that really disturbed me was the move from
Dr. Horrible being about doing something new and different and exciting (so aptly conveyed in
Joss's manifesto on the project, and the first two acts) to the denouement, which got mired in overused, uninteresting tropes. (
Spoiler alert)
Let's see: The sweetness-and-light female character dares to have sex, and then dies a grisly death? Classic (boring) horror film theme. Said female character's grisly death not about the character's arc in any way, but only in the story to serve as a catalyst for action by the male characters? Sounds like Women in Refrigerators Syndrome to me. What really depressed me about Act 3 wasn't the be-careful-what-you-wish-for ending for Dr. Horrible, but the sense of a squandered opportunity for Joss & Co. to really do something innovative. They certainly demonstrated new and exciting ways to go about producing and distributing a project, and the seamless incorporation of the musical numbers was typical Joss genius, but in the end, the story that
Dr. Horrible told was just more of the same tired drivel that we've been getting from comics and the horror genre for years. What do you think: Am I expecting too much from 42 minutes, or was the story plenty innovative for people not steeped in these other genres? Thanks for taking the time to read and respond to so many viewers' questions each week. I always enjoy reading your take on things!
— Emma L.
Matt Roush: Well, I hope it doesn't turn you off to read my reaction, but I think you're taking this one a bit too seriously. It's a fair criticism that Penny essentially and ultimately is a prop to propel Dr. Horrible into the ranks of evil, and in retrospect, it probably is a bit predictable — if you don't count the fact, which I do, that the tone of the show up until that point didn't lead you to expect a tragedy. It's a matter of perspective, I suppose, whether you think Joss Whedon is upholding a grand tradition with the way he told this wacky story or whether you think he sunk into cliché. I think you're a little hard on him and the show, but I appreciate the reasoning in your argument and wonder if I should be apologizing for enjoying Dr. Horrible on such a shallow level.
Question: I adore
Boston Legal, despite (or perhaps because of) its pandering, but I can understand why one might be turned off by that. However, I find it surprising that your criticism of the show isn't for its pandering but for the random silliness of its characters — Jerry, Clarence, Denny, etc. It sounds strange, but to me, that silliness is what makes
Boston Legal special. So many shows go for the overly dramatic angle and take themselves far too seriously, just like there are far too many that do the opposite: going for cheap laughs and silliness. But
Boston Legal combines those two, doing it with a tone and style that I just haven't seen on any other show. Without that lighthearted approach, the "meaty" dramatic moments could never be reached with as much impact, nor could they appeal to as wide an audience. I know that personally, this show has made it possible in my family to shift from our usual light conversations to a deeper, more intellectual political discussion of the issues, and it's all because of the light, engaging vibe. I think that's what makes
Boston Legal special: the ability to bridge the barrier between those who prefer a comedy and those who want a drama. Perhaps those like yourself, who are already so experienced with the fine tastes of other shows, can find no merit in the silly humor here, but I hope you can at least appreciate the effect it has on the tone, and respect it for that.
— Warren
Matt Roush: That's about as solid a defense of the show as I've read in all of the heated back-and-forth in the wake of the recent Emmy nominations. This "spoonful of sugar" argument helps explain its appeal, but my bottom line on the show is that when I try to return to the fold each season, it only takes me a few episodes to bail, whether it's the running joke of Denny being tackled by his dwarf girlfriend (or her mom, Delta Burke) or gags involving blow-up dolls or anything involving the instantly tiresome Jerry and the maudlin Clarence. The meat of the show has long been spoiled for me by the sophomoric cartoon antics, but I won't deny there are many who adore it for just those trimmings, and if it opens the door to discussions of some of the hot topics David E. Kelley has long favored (give me
The Practice any day), all for the good. But as a last word for now, because this topic is beginning to wear me out, I would respectfully request the
Boston Legal fan club to stick with ABC on Tuesdays at 10 pm/ET this fall and give
Eli Stone a shot. (
Boston Legal is moving to Mondays at the same time, if you hadn't heard.) Eli also mixes fanciful (at times dangerously precious) material with usually compelling legal stories, and does it with heart and wit and humor, rarely descending to the garish or grotesque. I'd also like to see Hollywood and the Academy embrace this show — and its cast, mostly notably Jonny Lee Miller and Victor Garber — the way they have
Boston Legal, Spader and Shatner. But I'm not counting on it.
Question: Do you think that if HBO had picked up
Mad Men it would have been an even better show, because the writers would not have had to worry about censorship?
— Grant
Matt Roush: I'm not sure it would be a better show, but I'm betting it wouldn't have taken a year for the audience to find it (no knock on AMC's superb marketing, which was off the charts for the second-season launch). Just by airing on HBO, a show gets an aura of specialness, even when it isn't deserved. Truth is: Mad Men looks and feels like an HBO show, with first-rate writing and acting and production design, and is not a lesser show for having to adhere to basic-cable standards — which are a lot more lax than on broadcast networks. Mad Men is a show that achieves its subversive and unsettling goals with great subtlety, and manages to get away with a lot. I'm not sure that more graphic language or sexuality would be necessary. In fact, I'm pretty confident in saying that the show is kinda perfect as is.
Question: The last episode of
Foyle's War has aired. I'm not asking for your help in publicizing a campaign to send swords (foils, get it?) to the BBC. I'm not asking if there is a snowball's chance that the show will be picked up by, I don't know, the Cartoon Network. I'm simply marking the passing of a great series. Though they will be missed, I'm grateful to have spent any length of time with these characters. Now on to
Mad Men.
— Chris
Matt Roush: If only every series were allowed to reach as dignified and satisfying a conclusion as the final season of Foyle's War (which, by the way, was produced by ITV, not the BBC). And while it makes sense to me that Foyle's story would end with the conclusion of the war, there's a very real possibility that we could see the show continue into post-WWII peacetime. Masterpiece executive producer Rebecca Eaton told reporters at last month's TCA press tour that the producers and writers are talking with Michael Kitchen about extending the franchise: "It's a tough sell, but I really hope. And if there is a Foyle's piece, we'll be there." So will the show's many fans, I'm sure.
Question: Who plays SARAH, the computer-generated voice on
Eureka? I started watching the show recently on DVD.
— Mike
Matt Roush: Good timing on your part, as the third season of this charming series has just started on Sci Fi Channel (Tuesdays at 9 pm/ET), and I'm liking what I'm seeing so far. And good question as well, because I had no idea until I asked that the voice of SARAH belonged to Neil Grayston, who also plays lovable geek Fargo. Versatile young guy, no?
Question: The first episode of
Project Runway was atrocious. Not only was the challenge a rerun, but almost every so-called designer basically cheated! They had all seen this challenge and knew how it worked and what it took to win, yet they still grabbed tablecloths from the grocery store. It was like they grabbed people from a beginner's sewing class at a community college and asked if they wanted to be on TV. So what do they do with the second episode? They try to top the atrocity of the first! (And almost succeeded.) I hate how they had the airhead models buy the materials, then blamed the designers for not having enough fabric, like it's their fault. As usual, "a million different ideas" are always going to trump a single bad effort, no matter how badly those ideas collide. We had little girls bawling because they were on the bottom, and we're only
two episodes in! That's not drama; it's pathetic. Yeah, I'd be bawling too, but I'd never make it in that industry. And neither will they. These are not designers; they're "characters." The two mousy girls wouldn't know fashion if it hit them with a truck. The two guys auf'ed so far were equally clueless. Suede and the tanorexic are hideous (and so are their designs). Korto is self righteous, and while I like Stella, she won't lay off the leather thing (they wanted a female Jeffery, but he is
so above her in every way). And I don't give a crap about anyone else. The '50s chick, the first challenge winner and the guy in the suits (cup-dress guy) are the only "standouts," but they would be lost if put into one of the "real seasons" of the show. And I hate that I don't even remember
their names but do remember the names of the ones who suck. I don't know if I can follow the show to Lifetime, much less finish this season. Still, maybe a producer shakeup will do the show some good. Do you feel this season is just as poorly constructed as Vincent's couture dress from Season 3, or is it just me?
— Nickie
Matt Roush: OMG, thanks for this hilariously "fierce" recap. (I thought about making a Blayne-style "licious" pun, but I think we all would have puked.) I agree the show got off to a beyond-rocky start, but I think the judges, and certainly Tim Gunn, acknowledged that right off the bat. The first episode's results were embarrassing, and I still can't get over Stella surviving that first round after draping her model in nothing but trash bags. (Although Jerry's serial-killer smock was truly hideous.) That was one of those times when the show should have tossed the rule book and eliminated more than one contestant. The twist of letting the models shop in Episode 2 was also ridiculous and forced the elimination of a potentially promising young designer because he didn't have enough of the wrong material. So while I don't really disagree with anything you're saying, I'm still having fun being aggravated by certain aspects of the show this season — including Blayne's and Suede's desperate attempts to be, as you say, "characters," which is just pathetic. Having a love-hate relationship with a show like this probably isn't such a bad thing, but I do hope more of the contestants step up soon or it could soon become more painful than enjoyable, and that's never a good thing.
