Happiness Is a Big Yellow Dog in a Bamboo Thicket

Looks like Penny and Des are not so pleased at the finale. I LOVE YEH, PENNEH!

Unless you were living in a secret hatch in the middle of a mystical island for the past six years, you most likely heard that the series finale of Lost was last night. A two-and-a-half hour Odyssey of jungles, of planes, and of Dharma beer. Yes, I am coming out of (pseudo) retirement to voice my opinions and humble theories on this ultimate of ultimate television endings.

Where to start? First, that while I thought the end was moving to the point that it was embarrassing and incredibly uncomfortable to sit in a room with my friends for fear of giving out a tell-tale sniffle. It reminded me a lot of this (it starts around 3:10). In fact, there have been more than several allusions to the James Cameron behemoth (the one where the cast isn't blue...at least at first). This season, from the Jack and Rose scene on the sideways/Purgatory plane, to Sun and Jin's watery death, and the two hands floating in the water, cutting to the sinking submarine. Far be it that Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse could resist including any bit of pop-culture, mythology, and literature already deep within the shady ferns of the Island.

The biggest complaint I've heard so far is that so many questions were left unanswered. What of the Island mythology? What was Widmore really after, and why could Ben kill him on the island, and not off? What are the origins of the Others? And what of Walt, the only cast member of Flight 815 to not reappear in the final season? Not to mention hundreds of other questions of the Dharma Initiative, visions of horses, time-travel, and why Claire wasn't eating peanut butter in the Church of the Afterlife/dead survivor pot-luck while canoodling with Charlie. Initially, I was irked that the writers chose a sentimental, somewhat expected ilk. Let's all get the audience in a syrupy fog over reuniting with dead loved ones, misty over Jack's ultimate sacrifice for his friends and for the Island, a red herring to deter viewers from asking the bigger questions.

Once the initial anger passed over me like a post-apocalyptic rainstorm, I realized that I didn't want all the answers. If art imitates life, than being handed answers or trying to be told what to make of the finale means very little, since, last time I checked, no one was telling me the significance of my listening to The Mamas and the Papas this morning.

It's important to remember that this is, after all, television. A medium that was once meant to sell dish soap and play host to tacky game shows and sitcoms with blaring laugh tracks. Most television shows don't make it past the infantile first season, let alone six. And to be given near free reign to introduce the space-time continuum, alternate worlds, and a mostly bare torso'd Sawyer, well, that never happens. To that end, Lost came along and turned that notion on its head. Week after week, we saw movie-caliber production levels and absurdly intricate plot lines. But the vision continually changed. The problem, then, is the constantly shifting view of the writers and the inability to go back and re-edit. J.R.R. Tolkein revised The Lord of the Rings countless times over the span of 30 years, in response to letters from fans pointing out discrepancies. It's different with TV, especially since the writers haven't figured out how to time travel themselves (we think).

Anyways.

So Jack, temporary guardian of the Island, chronic fixer of things, is the Christ figure. EW's Ken Tucker argues the point:

"...if there was one thing we can probably all agree upon, in the end, Jack Shephard was a Christ figure whose sacrifice saved many other people. The imagery could not have been more specific: Jack’s questioning and obeying of his father; his leadership of a small group of disciples; his final ascension (in TV terms, in a glowing white light). Even the piercing of his side by Locke/Man In Black was in the part of his body where Christ was speared while in agony on the crucifying cross."

The Magic Bullet

The History Chanel recently aired "JFK: Three Shots that Changed America," a three-hour documentary on the assassination of America's 35th president.

How the times have changed, irrevocably, inconceivably. No doubt shows like "Mad Men" capture glimpses of the sixties, but these are glossy, orchestrated, and romanticized. Things that seemed bromide are now security risks - JFK mulling about in crowds, though nerve-racking for the SS, was practiced. Imagine Obama doing the same - those forty years have seen some of the most drastic changes of all.

On that day, Jackie O. was wearing "some knobby pink thing" as a CBS reporter observed. The people in Fort Worth were there to see her style, and to shake hands with the President. They wanted a smile, a "how are you?" from the president, and only that.

The Media and, by proxy, news and entertainment outlets, have proven fascinating litmus tests of history. How the news saw the Kennedy Assassination the day of it divulges from how it was seen a week later - and, of course, with forty some odd years of analysis and insight, how will Matthew Weiner and Co. color the assassination? How different a world it is, from November 22, 1963, to the upcoming November 22, 2009, where, when President Obama came to New York City with the First Lady to see a show in May, the closest the press could get was half a block away, carefully watched by the NYPD and rooftop snipers.

These are tumultuous times, times of metal detectors and bomb-sniffing dogs and tracers. Yet, with things as they are, it is all too easy to forget that the so-called Golden Years of America were still riddled with danger - presidents were still assassinated a century and a half ago; America has been, mostly, a dangerous country. There were few sanctions in the developing West, where vigilantes and rogues took the law into their own hands. And yet, the 1950's and, to an extent, the 1960's, were the halcyon days, to be looked upon longingly.

Those days were fugacious at best, a hyperbolic lie at worst.

What of the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis? How easy it is to get caught up in the worries most germane to us - crumbling economies, swine flu, Lady Gaga - but how important it is to turn back the pages of history, to be reminded of the echoes of the past.

I'll Watch the Emmys, Even Though "30 Rock" and "Mad Men" Will Be the Only Things that Win

Ah, the Emmys. The awkward, red-headed step-child of the Oscars. Then again, television has been coming into its' own, with behemoths like Mad Men, 30 Rock, and nearly everything on HBO and Showtime nominated for a plethora of awards. Some say it's unfair that there are so many categories, or that Tina Fey has been nominated so much that she could build a spiral staircase of potential Emmys. Regardless, here are my predictions, for better or worse.

Best Comedy Series:
Should Win: 30 Rock
Will Win: 30 Rock

Referencing everything from B-list zombie slashers to Peter Shafer's Amadeus, I'm not the first to say it, nor will I be the last, but I want to go to there.

Best Drama Series:
Should Win: Mad Men
Will Win: Mad Men

Though its return was lugubrious, the payoff was well worth the wait. Season Two of this slick drama chronicles the complicated lives of the addies at Sterling-Cooper. Don disappears to California. Peggy discovers clothes that didn't belong to her grandmother. And we, the viewers, discover how much we love the unfolding intrigue. Can there please be a LOST/Mad Men hybrid, so we can all time travel back to the 1960's? (I'm looking at you, JJ.)

Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series:
Should Win: Jim Parsons as Sheldon Cooper (The Big Bang Theory)
Will Win: Alec Baldwin as Jack Donaghy (30 Rock)

Jim Parsons, the slight, gangly Sheldon, defines "poindexter." With zero social skills and the uncomfortable burden of a genius IQ, he bumbles through life, stuttering physics formulas and committing faux-pas. Meanwhile, Alec Baldwin plays a slightly more egotistical version of himself.


Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series:
Should Win: Jon Hamm as Don Draper
Will Win: Jon Hamm as Don Draper

Watch this genius SNL clip. And tell me you don't believe every word uttered by the once Dick Whitman.



Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy Series:
Should Win: Mary-Louise Parker as Nancy Botwin (Weeds)
Will Win: Tina Fey as Liz Lemon (30 Rock)

Let's look at these characters academically:

Liz Lemon: Neurotic, over-committed brunette writer with fast food fetish, has to deal with incompetent co-workers, writers, and actors.

Nancy Botwin: Neurotic, over-committed brunette drug dealer with Diet Coke fetish, has to deal with incompetent co-workers, drug lords, and DEA agents.

Sadly, the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences will go for the safe option. Not to say you're not brilliant, Tina, it's just...share the wealth, mmmkay?


Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series:
Should Win: Elisabeth Moss as Peggy Olson, Mad Men
Will Win: Elisabeth Moss as Peggy Olson, Mad Men
Who would have thought that meek and dowdy secretary-cum-copywriter Peggy Olson would blossom into such a rich, complex stalwart of moxie and guts? Anyone doubting Moss' ability to exhibit this richness, watch season two's season finale, "Meditations in an Emergency." And then we'll talk. Marska Hargitay (Detective Olivia Benson of Law and Order: SVU) was, at one point, a contender, but already has a nod from the Academy, and has been so absent from the current season that it seems unlikely she'll get another statuette.

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series:
Should Win: Neil Patrick Harris (Barney Stinson, How I Met Your Mother), Jack McBrayer (Kenneth the Page, 30 Rock), or Tracy Morgan (Tracy Jordan, 30 Rock)
Will Win: Jack McBrayer (Kenneth the Page, 30 Rock)

While tempting to say all supporting actors are created equal (and only serve as foils for the lead characters), the truth of the matter is this year's batch of auxiliary funny men are as varied as Barney Stinson's collection of suits. Ultimately, McBrayer's earnest naivete wins out as accidentally hilarious. Sorry, Rainn, but Dwight just doesn't cut it any more. Fact.


Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series:
Should Win: Kristin Chennoweth (Olive Snook, Pushing Daisies)
Will Win: Anyone's call

Chennoweth delights in the now defunct Pushing Daisies, as a jockey slash waitress Olive Snook, a pint-sized songbird and spy who helps the Scooby gang solve crimes. It doesn't hurt that this Broadway alum has some serious pipes, which she uses to great affect from time to time.

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series:
Should Win: Michael Emerson (Benjamin Linus, LOST)
Will Win: John Slattery (Roger Sterling, Mad Men)


Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series:
Should Win: ? (To be fair, I have not seen enough of any other show to give an accurate, angry rant over talent and the Academy being biased. It happens.)
Will Win: Sandra Oh (Dr. Cristina Yang, Grey's Anatomy)

Cristina has had a tumultuous season - first, getting impaled by an icicle, then falling for Lieutenant Night Terror who tried choking her in her sleep. There are only so many people who can pull off obsessive-compulsive neurosis with such likable charm, and Sandra Oh is one of them.

So, it's time to watch the magic unfold. Updates to follow as to how wonderfully/poorly I did. Enjoy!

New York, I Love You

There is nothing in this world that I love more than movies. I did, after all, devote four years of study to the crafting, telling, and analysis of the medium. There's something so great about film - it taps into telling stories and delving into the human condition, belly-first. But, if there was ever a contender for things I love more than movies, it might just be New York.

Enter "New York, I Love You," the perfect hybrid of motion picture and the Big Apple.

It's like Christmas when I first discovered they're making a companion film to 2006's Cannes Film Festival darling, "Paris, Je T'aime," appropriately titled "New York, I Love You." The premise is simple: each five minute vignette is about a specific part of New York - the Upper East Side, Bronx, East Village, and so on. And each vignette is written and directed by a prominent director.
It just so happens to be the directorial debut of Natalie Portman, who appeared in a "Paris, Je T'aime" vignette.

Emmanuel Benbihy, the architect and ingenue of these love letters to various cities, is also planning "Shanghai, I Love You," slated for release in 2010. And though "NY, ILY" won't be out until October, there's still plenty to love about this film - it boasts all-star cast, from Robin Wright Penn, Orlando Bloom, and Andy Garcia (it angers me that Blake Lively is in it, though she is a part of New York, if only fictitiously.)

Does this mean "Cleveland, I Tolerate You" is in the works? Doubtful. But who knows, the wanderlusting writers of "Paris, Je T'aime" might have started a vast empire.

Half Blood Wince

It has finally arrived. The torturous weeks walking through New York viewing pictures of a very macabre Daniel Radcliffe in subway stations are at an end. For any Muggles who have been like Sirius Black, and living in a cave for the past decade, I am, of course, referring to the debut of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince this evening.

Prepare for a masterful tale of spells and villains, of castles and creatures, and a lot of wizard angst. Review to follow after my viewing. To Hogwarts! To Harry!


Well. That was that. I braved the lines at the Regal Cinema in Union Square, and precisely at 12:01, was the magical moment. Viewers clapped and cheered as though they were at a Quiddich match between Slytherin and Gryffindor. But enough about my irrefutable nerdiness.

Let's start out with the good the film has to offer. No director seems to stay around very long - one could even argue that the position is cursed, much like the Defense Against the Dark Arts position. But, in the whole mess of them, David Yates (of several acclaimed BBC series) has proven he can handle the epic span of storylines that J.K. Rowling presents. He transformed "Order of the Phoenix" from an angst-ridden teenybopper (cough, cough...Twilight) popcorn flick to a Big Brother-esque lesson on totalitarianism and absolute power. And to that end, Yates has made a successful, visually stunning film with HBP.

The issues lie in several aimless plot twists screenwriter Steve Kloves threw in. Too much butterbeer at the Hog's Head, perhaps? Or not enough Felix Felicis? I am not the first, nor will I be the last, to complain about the completely irrelevant scene in the middle of the film, where the Burrow is stormed by Bellatrix LeStrange (Helena Bonham Carter, in a disappointing role handled with the finesse of Gwarp in a chinashop) and the pointless were-man Fenrir Greyback (Dave Legeno). I realize that movies usually deviate from their heftier cousins, the novel, but to spend over five minutes on a battle that was not in the book, did not further the plot, and took the place of the skirmish at the end of HBP?

A definite plus to nearly a decade of witchcraft and wizardry and wee little Brits is that they were bound to get better at some point -- Emma Watson, especially. She has always been the strongest actor of the three, no more than in the third film where she proved she was more than a brainy poindexter, and a deep, emotional being with as much insight into Muggle Studies as she does wizard romance. We see her and Won-wo--I mean, Ron's love blossom, from denial to the touching scene in the Hospital Wing where Ron mumbles "Erm-on-knee."

Another performance to be applauded? How about the creepy little nephew of the scary serpent-like Dark Lord Ralph Fiennes, Hero Fiennes-Tiffin. Finnes-Tiffin plays the intensely creepy 11-year-old Tom Riddle cum Lord Voldemort. Thankfully, though, he hasn't developed his odd penchant to play with anagrams like in Chamber of Secrets.

The film's peaks do not make up for its valleys, and vice versa. Though the climax at Voldemort's cave is, at points poignant and touching, when Dumbledore offers himself as the potion drinker, telling Harry, "You're too important." Harry, of course, plays the hero, helping the wizened old Michael Gambon (who never quite captures the sparkle of Richard Harris' Dumbledore) escape to safety. [SPOILER ALERT] Yet minutes later, on the highest tower of Hogwarts, Harry watches blithely by as Dumbledore is murdered by Snape, another plot point that isn't consistent with the characters. In the novel, Dumbledore has the choice to defend himself or perform a bodybind spell on Harry to keep him safe and unseen under the Invisibility cloak. He choses to protect Harry, knowing that one way or another, he was to be sacrificed for the cause of good and light.

The movie, as a whole, is consistent with every other, in that every film has consistently disappointed and strayed away from the crucial plot points. Yes, the films are visually stunning, like a Fabergé egg but upon any amount of pressure or scrutiny, one finds it hollow, and it cracks and crumbles upon itself. Nowhere in the film does Kloves mention the Gaunts, Tom Riddle's only pure-blood wizard relatives; likewise, he only spends a pittance of time with the Horcruxes. Or the lessons with Dumbledore. Or Snape assisting Malfoy in his all-important mission for the Dark Lord. The film spends so much time proudly flaunting how great it is to be a wizard and no time explaining why things are happening.

Kloves should examine the methods of the Academy Award winning writers of the Lord of the Rings trilogy - Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Mr. Peter Jackson himself. The three knew the texts religiously, had read and love the books for years before carefully adapting it to the silver screen. Any changes were made for a reason, to adapt the characters to the deceptively tricky medium of film. Boyens once commented on changing the character of Faramir in The Two Towers:

If you're trying to up the tension, you don't have your main characters captured by someone who sort of interrogates them, but, not really, who then offers them a cup of tea and says, 'I'll do anything I can to help you.' It's death on film. And it's not just the effect that the character out of the book...it's trying to establish that this is the most evil thing ever created, it's tearing apart the mind of your main character, it's reduced this other character to this miserable creature Gollum, and now you come along someone who says, 'I would not touch this thing if it lay on the highway.' You've just stripped the Ring of all its power.

The issue is apparent for avid readers of Rowling's series: it is obvious Kloves has no love of the text he is transforming, it is merely another assignment, another job. Much of the joy and mystery felt from reading the books was lost to me, as it felt like an itenerary for much of the film: "Go here, do this, say that, cast a spell or two, Quiddich match, someone dies, Hogwarts Express."

Bethertainment Weekly Grade:
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - starts out wholley splendid, and half-heartedly fizzles out. B-

Harry Potter quote of the day: "He's covered in blood again. Why is it he's always covered in blood?"

The Finale Countdowns

Bethertainment Weekly Presents:
Twittereviews: Season Finale Reviews in 140 words or less.

LOST
I wish I could time travel to the season six premiere. A+

GREY'S ANATOMY
Everyone's McDying or McMarried. McBoring. C+

SCRUBS
Titanic-like montage of JD leaving Sacred Heart. Awkwardly heartwarming. B

THE OFFICE
Michael Scott and Holly put on 'Dunder Mifflinaire.' Pam and Jim is havin' a bay-bee. That is all. B+

And, I am proud to announce I have - from a reliable source - the information that "Mad Men" has started production for a solidly brilliant season three. Let's just say I may or may not have run into a certain Art Director of Sterling-Cooper at certain Broadway revival show and may or may not have asked him questions about the marvellous "Mad Men."

The Ballad of Daniel Faraday: LOST Recap

Huh. Wasn't expecting the variables in "Lost's" 100th episode, conveniently titled "The Variable."

Talk about a conundrum. We discover the details of Faraday's encounter in the 1970's. He doesn't work in the Dharma Initiative, unlike many of the other islanders. He presents the quixotic knight-of-obligation haunted by the requests of his mother, who was either the biggest fan of Fate on Facebook, or an insatiable Destiny's Child devotee.

Faraday as a boy is the jumpy, nervous Physicist Faraday in Boy Size. Turns out most everyone on "Lost" harbors a secret pianist talent -- Jack, Benjamin Linus, and now Far-Away Faraday -- and is well-versed in the classics. But the important thing was Eloise Hawking, tearful and stern, telling him he cannot play piano anymore, that there's not time.

LITTLE BOY FARADAY: But I can make time.
ELOISE: If only you could.

Every line between Faraday and Eloise is a double entendre, each glance has meaning. Sadly, since I am neither J.J. Abrams or a staff writer on the show, the best I can do is hypothesize and use my shiny college degrees to make educated guesses.

First things first. Through flashbacks of Faraday's life, we get a better picture of who exactly Eloise Hawking is. One part scientist, two parts crazy pageant mom, she drives her son to be what he is meant to be -- a top scientist -- so there was simply no time in Faraday's childhood for games of Candyland and trips to the lake. When Faraday graduates from Oxford, Eloise is remarkably cold to his then-girlfriend-soon-to-be-brain dead Theresa. And when confronted by Charles Whidmore about sacrifices, slaps him. "You have no idea what I've had to sacrifice," she says. Which begs the question: does Eloise know what she must do? I would argue, to a certain extent. I'll come back to this idea.

This episode reveals that people are the variables -- that is, their actions and, convexly, lack of actions -- are malleable and are not set in stone. Exhibit A: Charlotte, "just remembering" a man who came to her as a child telling her she must leave the island.

>

Does "just remembering" mean that Faraday of 1977 talks to Past-Charlotte in that moment, that Charlotte didn't have that memory until Present-Day Faraday (functioning in 1977) talked to her? It was in the past, but, much like Billy Pilgrim of Slaughterhouse Five, the past is subject to change, and memories with them.

Fans of the show will revel in a "big win" -- we find out the causality for everything! In 1977, unparalleled power is released. The hatch is built to control the power, the button made to reset every 108 minutes. Without the hatch, and the varying power, Oceanic flight 815 would not have crashed, and none of the events on the island would have happened. Jack sees this as promising. No island. No smoke monster. No Benjamin Linus. No feasting on Dharma O's and Dharma Ranch Dressing. Just landing in Los Angeles, a little worse for the wear.

And what of Penelope and Desmond Hume? There was a poorly attempted "ER/Grey's Anatomy" moment when we think Mr. Hume is on his way to the bright forever. Only to find out he's miraculously fine -- looks like the Wheaties he had in his bag o' groceries really did protect him!

Now, to address the giant smoke monster in the room. What of Eloise Hawking of 1977 shooting her son? Faraday storms The Other's Camp awkwardly brandishing a gun, demanding to see Eloise. A whole host of questions arise: why did Faraday feel the need to raid the camp? Did Richard Alpert know that Eloise was present, and, if so, why would he lie and say she wasn't in camp? Was Faraday aware of what needed to be done? That is, did he know it was his destiny to go back to 1977 and be murdered at the hand of his mother? These are questions I can't readily answer. But Eloise seems to have little idea of who she just shot in the stomach. Or, she knows it's all part of the island's destiny.

And, for those who subscribe to the church of H.G. Welles and Steven Hawking, another quantum-continuum "win" was won. "We are the variables," Faraday explains, building on the excellent season four episode "The Constant." That is to say, people are the variables. It was a giant awwww moment, because you think, People's actions aren't set in stone. We're erratic at best, unbalanced at worst. It goes back to Season One, where the story again revolves around the people of "Lost" (as per my letter seen in Entertainment Weekly) and not the extraordinary events surrounding them.

So, Daniel Faraday is dead.

For now.

But as evidenced by other resurrections, (see also: Jock Locke) dead means very little on the island. From next week's previews, Jack is again on a mission to save the island and perhaps stop Oceanic Flight 815 from crashing at all.

Gather round, and say it with me: "Oooh, mindplay!"

Bethertainment Weekly Grade: B+