Archive for the Uncategorized Category

12 Years a Slave

Posted in Uncategorized on February 2, 2014 by Tom Steward

A review that captures perfectly why 12 Years a Slave is so effecting and what movies have the potential to do for our perception of history.

michaeljglass's avatarWriting About Film

12 Years a Slave

Released 2014. Directed by Steve McQueen. Screenplay by John Ridley, based on “Twelve Years a Slave” by Solomon Northup. Starring Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Lupita Nyong’o, Benedict Cumberbatch.

I’ve been trying to write about 12 Years a Slave in an impersonal, methodical way, but I can’t. So strong was my response to this film that I need to bring my background and experience to the surface of my review, so here it is: as a 25-year-old white male who’s never had much to be bullied about, let alone abused, as much as I try to empathise with slaves depicted in media, it’s not a life I know anything about, even tangentially. It’s all too easy for me to observe portrayals of slavery and nod along, intellectually appreciating the cruelty and brutality shown without getting anywhere near an understanding of the hopelessness, the suffering, the human cost. Whenever I see slavery…

View original post 4,265 more words

Politics comes to Downton Abbey

Posted in Uncategorized on November 13, 2013 by Tom Steward

Here’s a guest blog I wrote for the excellent blog site Watching Politics on Downton Abbey.

Greg Frame's avatarWatching Politics

By Dr. Tom Steward

DowntonAbbey

In spite of myself and my left-leaning politics, I rather like watching Downton Abbey. I have a predilection for television which traces out the mundane while lurching into melodrama, probably why I enjoyed The Sopranos so much (although Downton is not nearly as good). The series has also been a vessel of cultural exchange for me and my Latino-American wife, bringing English heritage in touch with the soap opera and telenovela. Critics clamour for Downton to show more of the politics of its day (the teens and early twenties thus far) but its attempts are always so ham-fisted that I generally prefer that they don’t. Season three’s conversation about women’s suffrage felt like one of those hastily scripted and filmed responses to current events you see in soap operas, like Eastenders’ reaction to the death of the Queen Mother.

However much it may try to…

View original post 605 more words

Lead Soprano in a Heavenly Choir

Posted in Uncategorized on July 2, 2013 by Tom Steward

It’s been nearly a month since I last posted and there’s been no shortage of news about American television in the meantime but there was never any doubt what my first post back would be about. On June 19th 2013, actor James Gandolfini died unexpectedly and prematurely in Rome at the age of 51. Any fitting obituary to the man would talk about his scene and film-stealing roles in some of Hollywood’s best (and worst) movies of the last couple of decades, so this won’t be that. Instead, I want to talk about the man he left behind, Tony Soprano.

James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano

Gandolfini’s short, generous life outlasted Tony’s, or did it? Since David Chase accidentally lost the footage of The Sopranos’ final scene, we’ll never know if Tony was destined for the big sleep or a courtroom TV movie, if those two things aren’t already the same. Whether or not he survived his namesake, Tony had already suffered a living death in the ignominy of a bullet wound inflicted by a frail, banana-deprived relative and a two-episode dream sequence. Had Gandolfini come back from the other side, he would have had something less banal to impart than ‘Every day is a gift’.

Scene Missing!

Gandolfini was by all accounts a kind, humble man. Tony saw kindness as part of a transaction, one demanding recognition of the benefactor’s gesture from the recipient. On the rare occasions Tony acted selflessly towards his friends, his patented system of exchange was so ingrained in their minds that it was impossible for either to escape. It also made him impossible to escape. When Tony’s wife Carmela left him to pursue a meaningful relationship with another man, she was tainted from years with a husband who never gave without expecting. Tony was the only man she could do business with.

Edie Falco as Carmela Soprano

People liked Tony and people like people like Tony. Gandolfini reminded us of that. Tony resented being seen as the stock figure mobster in a late 90s Hollywood farce. Analyse This is in his Roger Ebert-with-Tourette’s estimation ‘a fuckin’ comedy’. But he was always happy to take the laughs. It’s fine that his therapist lets her façade of objectivity crumble following his comeback to her suggestion of a prostate exam: ‘I don’t let anyone wag a finger in my face’. He readily plays up to his daughter’s roommate’s fandom of his one-liners. But when push comes to beating he’d rather be feared than liked. When Tony perceives he’s losing respect to laughter, the humour darkens considerably. One hint of ridicule by his Wonderbread Wop neighbour Cusamano and Tony’s leaving MacGuffin packages for him to ‘hold on to for a little while’ and to sweat over his paranoid mob movie-derived fantasies.

The Wonderbread Wop

Gandolfini made great sacrifices to his temperament and sanity to show us what Tony was capable of. Instead of carving out an adequate career making Tony Scott movies seem better than they are, he committed himself (in every sense of the word) to participating in acts of violence that turned his stomach and pushed him to the edge, even when he wasn’t asked. Sopranos creator David Chase’s eulogy at Gandolfini’s funeral spoke of a moment in filming where Gandolfini as Tony destroyed a fridge door without any prompting from script or director. According to Chase, Gandolfini cursed the show and its crew for putting him through such torment at which time Chase had to remind him that the act of violence was his creation. Maybe he and Tony weren’t so different after all; two men who both felt obliged to resort to extremes without ever recognising it was their choice.

James Gandolfini remembered by David Chase

Gandolfini was not a TV actor, he was an actor who used TV to create a character more vast, complicated, contradictory and textured than we had ever seen. Because he had eight years to do it? It probably helped. Gandolfini knew more than anyone that Tony could not be defined by a single moment. He wasn’t afraid of omitting the empathy required for any fleeting viewer to know and like Tony on first encounter if the situation warranted a Tony that was far from agreeable. He would catch them next time, and they would know and like Tony for real. There was a time where television was in the eyes of many an illegitimate cousin of virtually every narrative art form out here (with the possible exception of video games). By the time Gandolfini had got through with it, television was considered the best that American culture had to offer.

Sorry No Post Today

Posted in Uncategorized on May 15, 2013 by Tom Steward

Hello readers,

To my frustration and disappointment, Twitter have suspended my account @wtvamericans with no cause obvious to me and no reason given (even after 3 days!). This is my main source of publicising this blog so while I was intending to post something today I’m going to hold off until it’s all sorted. Apologies but I’d feel a lot better if the account was back up before I start posting again.

Enjoy your weeks and (hopefully) see you soon.

Tom.

Asylum of The Daleks (Review)

Posted in British Shows on American TV, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 8, 2012 by Tom Steward

An advantage of having a themed blog is that it challenges you to find suitable topics to talk about each week. A drawback is that you can’t talk about whatever you like. In some ways that defeats the point of blogging as the form is so conducive to a diary-like outpouring of what you want to say as it comes to you. So readers looking for a connection between my review of ‘Asylum of the Daleks’, the opener to the new season of Doctor Who, and this blog will have to be content with the knowledge that I watched it…in America.

The anticipation for ‘Asylum of the Daleks’ couldn’t have been higher. Not only had viewers waited 5 months longer than usual for the new season of Doctor Who to begin but the episode heralded the return (albeit from a bogus publicity-stunt hiatus) of the Daleks, the show’s lynchpin villains and one-time Beatlemania-emulating pop culture phenomena. Also, since the annual run of episodes has been cut in half for 2012, viewers watched the episode in trepidation of it constituting 1/6th of their Doctor Who fix this year. The close-season publicity for the series had also tantalized long-term fans of the show with staged, Abbey Road-style photographs of Dalek models stretching back to the 1960s, luring people into thinking that the episode would be a Dalek retrospective reflecting on how these Dyson sink-unblockers had figured in the series (or even British art and culture) in the past 49 years.

The Fab Four!

It all started very promisingly. Writer-producer Steven Moffat’s scripts for Doctor Who are often deeply flawed but he is adept at cold opens, as seen in the pre-title sequence of the 2011 Christmas Special which would have graced any Bond film. The teaser in which The Doctor and his companions are kidnapped from their times by Daleks and taken to their Parliament with a cryptic agenda was mouth-watering. But it also demonstrated a conspicuous whittling-down of extraneous dialogue (Moffat’s greatest weakness as a writer) in favour of imagistic storytelling, making the first 5 minutes of this effort eminently satisfying. The dialogue that remained was sparse and terrifying, especially in The Doctor’s opening exchange with an emptied-out, human-style Dalek on the mysteriously resurrected home planet Skaro, which effortlessly captured-and yet did not aggrandise-the cynicism and deep-seated resentment at the heart of Matt Smith’s portrayal of the central character.

Tough room!

As soon as the re-vamped credits-which managed in true digital-era BBC style to be simultaneously utilitarian and gaudy-ended, the problems began. Moffat seems to believe that to over-complicate something is to improve it, and the shock introduction of-and premature farewell to-The Doctor’s future companion (Jenna-Louise Coleman) was an ill-advised overegging of the narrative pudding, appropriately for an episode with a dairy-based leitmotif. It also completed unbalanced the episode, like Faustino Asprilla did to Newcastle (Google it, young’ns!). And here lies the problem with all the stories featuring classic villains since Moffat took over in 2010. The Daleks play second fiddle to the characters and their emotional dilemmas and all the potential of the set-up, in this case a planet inhabited by disturbed Daleks, is wasted. Contrary to the promo pictures, the episode had no respect for the Daleks or what they have meant to the show.

Hello new companion-Goodbye new companion!

The spectre hanging over the forthcoming departure of Amy and Rory (Karen Gillan and Arthur Darvill) loomed larger after the first look at their replacement. It’s a dispiriting thought, especially as the most compelling moments of this episode revolved around Rory. Darvill has the alchemy to turn Moffat’s entry-level humour into comedy gold, exemplified in this episode as Rory attempts to make peace with a Dalek by returning what he assumes is its egg spawn. Without this kind of performance polish, Moffat’s half-witticisms are going to look pretty pointless in the future. And it’s not long before the terse force of the minimal dialogue gives way to the excruciating baby-talk that Moffat increasingly takes as his signature meter. Moffat even seems to have lost the knack of writing the domestic life of the Ponds, throwing a red-herring divorce in their way reminiscent of the water-treading ‘marriage trouble’ storylines given to couples in soap operas.

Those aren’t chickens!

But worse was to come. Now I’m well aware that Doctor Who has leant heavily on popular culture over the years to inform its storylines. In fact, some of the best stories-like Victorian-lit romp ‘The Talons of Weng-Chiang’-are pure pastiche. I’m also entirely cogniscent of the dearth of new ideas in Moffat’s scripts for the show since his first in 2005. There are, for example, none between ‘Blink’in 2007 and ‘The Wedding of River Song’in 2011. But the Martin Bashir-meets-Johan Hari level of plagiarism in this episode is just inexcusable. Inexcusable because it brazenly lifts the plot twist and visual imagery from Duncan Jones’ Source Code without acknowledgement, adaptation or play. And inexcusable because an intriguing original idea had been abandoned to make way for a wholly derivative one. We saw nothing of the implicitly terrifying concept of a planet ruled by rogue and maddened Daleks. Instead we got a few broken plungers.